Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, &c.) BILL [By Order]

Second Reading deferred until the First Sitting Day after 9th April at the hour appointed for the consideration of Opposed Private Business.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

Account ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1942, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1943, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General therecn."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Pedlars and Street Musicians

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increase in the number of persons now operating as kerb-side pedlars and pavement hucksters, he will cause a special check to be made as to their lawful obligations under the National Service Acts and in all proven cases of evasion direct such persons to employment more essential to the war effort.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): Checks are undertaken from time to time by the police on pedlars, street musicians and others similarly occupied and arrangements have recently been made for special action of this kind to be taken in certain areas. Persons found by this means or by the normal action of officers of the Department in following up individual cases of men who endeavour

to evade their responsibility, often by moving from place to place, are called up or sent to suitable work as may be appropriate.

Mr. Walkden: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that there are many thousands of these persons pestering the public every day throughout the country, and will he try to influence his right hon. Friend to collaborate with the President of the Board of Trade, and to roll up his sleeves and get to business to chase them off the streets altogether.

Mr. McCorquodale: That is just what I have said. Arrangements have recently been made for special action.

Mr. Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend be more vigorous about it.

Mr. G. Strauss: Has the action taken disclosed that many of these street hucksters and musicians are, in fact, evading their military or industrial service.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this not the private enterprise all the Tories advocate.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: If it is established that these men are doing no harm, and are not evading their military service, may they not be permitted to live out their lives in freedom, in their own way.

Mr. Walkden: But are they not profiteers.

Unofficial Strikes

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to end the strike of miners in Yorkshire and prevent a repetition of similar unofficial strikes; and whether he is satisfied that the powers the Government possesses are sufficient to deal adequately with those who instigate and encourage such stoppages of work.

Mr. McCorquodale: It has been the policy of the Government to rely upon the joint voluntary machinery and negotiation for the settlement of disputes and upon the authority of trade unions and employers' organisations to see that agreements reached are loyally observed. The Government are considering whether further powers are necessary to ensure that the authority of these organisations is not undermined and what further steps can be taken to prevent unofficial strikes.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry that the Minister is not here, but I have no doubt he is quite properly engaged elsewhere. In his absence may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in regard to those great decisions which are to be taken in the course of the next few days, and to which his right hon. Friend referred in a speech the other day, are we to understand that these may be taken during the Recess; or is it intended that they shall not be made effective until the House has had an opportunity of considering them.

Mr. McCorquodale: I would ask the House not to press me any further on the statement I have just made. I am afraid I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister not consider remedying the miners' grievances as a means of stopping the strike.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what proportion of those on strike are not members of the union.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING)

Mr. Jewson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement as to the arrangements he intends making for demobilisation.

Mr. McCorquodale: No, Sir. Not at present.

Mr. Jewson: Could the hon. Gentleman say when it would be appropriate to repeat this Question.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am afraid not. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday.

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements the Government are making as part of their post-war resettlement plans for the industrial training of men and women demobilised from the Services or from war work.

Mr. MeCorquodale: The Government have given consideration to this matter and have devised plans for providing training after the war for those whose careers have been interrupted by war service. I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed Statement of the Government's proposal.

Following is the statement:

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING OF NON-DISABLED MEN AND WOMEN

As part of the resettlement scheme and as a means of furthering the supply of skilled workers in industry to meet abnormal deficiencies in the post-war period, industrial training will be introduced to assist men and women released from war service who are in need of a course of training to enable them to obtain employment of a kind likely to lead to permanent resettlement, having regard to their capacity and to the estimated probable needs of industry. In order to provide opportunities for those who are the last to be released from the Forces, the training scheme will be continued until the end of the demobilisation of persons who have served during the period of hostilities. The scheme will apply to men and women released from the Armed Forces, Merchant Navy, Civil Defence Services, National Fire Service, Police Auxiliaries and Civil Nursing Reserve and to persons whose war service has been on other types of work of national importance including industrial work. In administration of the scheme special care will be taken to ensure that men and women who have served in the Armed Forces and are eligible for training under the scheme receive their training as early as possible after release from the colours, and, if at any time the facilities for training are insufficient to meet the needs of all applicants without delay, men and women released from the Forces or from the Merchant Navy will, in general, be admitted first.

For those within the scope of the scheme the broad conditions of eligibility will be:

(1) that a period of full-time service in work of national importance has been served during the war;
(2) that by reason of such service the person concerned has either:

(a) been unable to start or complete training for a skilled occupation, or
(b) suffered interruption in the following of his occupation;
(3) that he is in need of a course of training to enable him to obtain employment of a satisfactory kind having regard to his general capacity.

The training will be given in Government Training Centres administered direct by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and also, under arrangements made by the Ministry, in consultation with the Board of Education and the Scottish Education Department, in Technical Colleges, or in other educational institutions. During training adequate allowances, including supplementary allowances in respect of dependants, will be paid. The allowances will be the same irrespective of the trade for which the individual is being trained. Arrangements will also be made where appropriate for training in employers' establishments under suitable financial arrangements. Training in agricultural occupations will be provided by the Departments of Agriculture.

The detailed application of the training scheme to the different industries will be worked out in full consultation with the representative organisations of employers and workpeople concerned. The Government's proposals for training adults for the building and civil engineering industries after the war have already been announced (Cmd. Paper 6428) and the details are under discussion with representatives of the industries. The educational and vocational training given inside the Services will, as far as possible, be co-ordinated with the training to be given, after release from the Forces, under the scheme set out above.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (FOOD SITUATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is satisfied that adequate preparations have been made respecting the possibility of a recurrence of grave food shortage and famine; whether any official inquiry has been made respecting both a sufficient production of food and co-ordinated planning of distribution; and whether he could give an estimate respectively of the land likely to be under cultivation for food crops during the next two years and the gross amount of rice, millet, wheat, rye and other food crops aimed at during that period.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): As the reply is necessarily very long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Could we have some assurance that the Minister is satisfied that adequate preparations for the future are being made, in view of the apprehension existing in some quarters.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will find that the statement I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT covers that and any other possible supplementary questions that he might ask.

Following is the information:

The principal causes underlying food shortage and distress in India, some of which cannot be remedied or controlled by any governmental authority, are as follow:

(1) Imports of rice on which India formerly relied, as she does not normally produce enough foodgrains to feed her people, are now cut off.
(2) The marketable surpluses of food-grains are produced by millions of small cultivators, and administrative machinery to secure complete control over these surpluses does not exist.
(3) Crops are subject to the vagaries of the monsoon and to natural disasters of common occurrence in India and cannot be relied upon with any degree of certainty.
(4) Increases in production arising from the "Grow More Food" campaign, etc., are counter-balanced by an increase of population at the rate of five million a year.
(5) Shipping limitations have restricted imports, without which the Government of India are hampered in the building up of reserves wherewith to control prices at a sufficiently low level to bring foodgrains within the reach of the poorest.

The famine in Bengal last year was in large part due to crop failure and cyclones, and the record rice crop which has been harvested this year should preclude the possibility of a repetition of famine conditions in that Province. Although rice will be in short supply in Malabar, the Deccan and Bombay, no serious shortage is anticipated, but the millets and the wheat crop have been affected by disease and unseasonable rains and are disappointing. The situation depends largely on what proportion of the crops the Government of India can procure and distri-


bute. Strict rationing has been applied to available supplies. The main measures which have been taken by the Government of India to control the situation are:

(1) The introduction of food rationing in urban areas. Over 130 towns and cities with a total population of 25 millions are already rationed wholly or partially, and rationing schemes are progressing steadily.
(2) The distribution of surplus food-grains is controlled under the Central Government's basic plan.
(3) The arrangements which have been made by the Provincial Governments for purchase of foodgrains are being steadily improved.
(4) Wheat, rice, millets, barley, and gram are subject to price control.
(5) Improvements are being effected in the enforcement and operation of the Foodgrains Control Order within the limits of the capacity of the administrative machine.
(6) Foodgrains are being imported on a substantial scale, though necessarily within the limits determined by shipping stringencies, and foodgrains reserve depots are being established.
(7) Exports of foodgrains have been prohibited.
(8) Suitable admixtures of other grains with wheat flour are being made.
(9) Promotion of public confidence by extensive and increasing use of all suitable forms of publicity.

The Governor of Bengal in a broadcast on the 1st April to the people of Bengal has expressed his confident view of the outlook in that Province. The Government of India has undertaken to meet the foodgrains requirements on a ration basis of Calcutta and its suburbs for a period of 13 months in order to assist Bengal procurement notwithstanding the fact that statistically the province has a surplus this year. Procurement of rice surpluses is proceeding somewhat slowly under the deliberately cautious policy of the Provincial Government but is still influenced by lack of confidence due to last year's experience. Careful plans have been made for the storage and local distribution of foodgrains, and military assistance which gave invaluable help last year is still available.

As regards the all-India situation, the carrying out of the recommendations of the

Foodgrains Policy Committee Report which covers all aspects of foodgrains production and distribution is part of the ordinary duty of the Food Departments of both the Central and Provincial Governments. The arrangements which have been and are being made for foodgrain procurement and distribution throughout India are under constant review and close scrutiny by the Central Government. Particular attention is directed to Bengal and the food plans of the Government of Bengal for procurement were made in consultation with the Central Government. The Provincial Governments with financial assistance from the Government of India where necessary have taken up a large number of schemes for increasing output per acre and total acreage under food crops and more such schemes will be taken up in future. Sanctioned schemes involve loans to cultivators, subsidies for diverting land from non-food crops to food crops, bringing under cultivation new areas, distribution of seeds and manure, and extension of facilities for irrigation. Apart from those schemes exclusively financed by Provincial Governments there are many schemes to which assistance is being given by the Government of India whose contribution to such schemes amounts to about two and a half crores of rupees in loans and one and a half crores in grants. The policy of giving such help will continue but in spite of the best efforts of the Government of India and those of Provincial Governments the Government of India do not consider the total amount of food-grains raised in the country provide an absolutely safe margin for meeting India's full requirements If weather conditions are unfavourable during periods of growth of food crops, shortages of food for the country as a whole are not beyond the bounds of possibility. The targets of acreage fixed for the year 1943/44 were rice 77.1, millets 38.2 and wheat 28.5 million acres. (Rye is not grown in India.) It is not likely that in the next two years there will be a any increase on these target acreages which have deliberately been fixed high in order to stimulate effort all round.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES' CLERKS (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)

Sir Reginald Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations


contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Justices' Clerks; and, if so, when.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Some of the recommendations in this report, which has only just been presented, can be carried into effect without legislation and these will be brought to the notice of the justices. The main recommendations require legislation, and on this I am not in a position to make any statement, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the importance of these recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNEES, ISLE OF MAN (PAY)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what daily wages are paid to internees in the Isle of Man by farmers for whom they work.

Mr. H. Morrison: The farmers pay in respect of internees who have volunteered to work on their farms a minimum of is a day, as well as bearing the cost of transport and insurance. In addition, they provide meals and make such extra payment by way of gratuity as may be arranged in each case.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask if that is not exactly the same rate of payment as that paid to Italian prisoners of war? Under what authority does the Minister prevent these internees receiving the proper agricultural wages for the job.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know what the payment to Italian prisoners of war is, but it is the case that these are internees and the circumstances in their case are bound to be exceptional. There are various circumstances in connection with the matter that are exceptional, such as the hours worked and the transport that has to be provided. They are fed and there are various other circumstances which make it impossible to deal with this on the ordinary industrial basis. I am not sure that it would be desirable, either, to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE DUTIES, ST. MARY CRAY (PETITION)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the reason for the delay

in answering two registered letters from the residents of St. Mary Cray, Kent, dated 22nd February, 1944, and 17th March, 1944, signed by Mr. E. Hackett Jones and others, and containing a petition with approximately 2,500 names.

Mr. H. Morrison: When the petition was received the regional commissioners were already investigating the possibility of modifying the system of duties to which the petitioners refer. These modifications could not, however, be introduced until experiments under actual raiding conditions had been carried out, and the scheme for the region as a whole had been approved and promulgated. I regret to learn that while investigations were taking place certain members of the Services refused to carry out the duties assigned to them. Although the petitioners have not received a formal reply to their representations, the members of the Services have been informed of the changes in their duties and I hope that this reply will dispose of the matter.

Sir W. Smithers: While realising the pressure on Government Departments just now, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he proposes to take any disciplinary action against the official responsible for this lack of courtesy; and does he not think that these public-spirited people might at least have received an acknowledgment.

Mr. Morrison: I understood that this was being dealt with by the regional commissioners. I admit that there was some delay in my Department, for which I am sorry, but we are working under great pressure, and I think that disciplinary action would be making very heavy weather of it.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not "great pressure" in Government Departments mean that five people are doing a job where, in private life, one would be engaged.

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is a gross libel on Government Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (DISCIPLINE)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered a letter sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife regarding the regularising of discipline in the police force; and what statement has he to make on the matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member's letter only reached me yesterday. I am inquiring into the points which he raises and I will send him a reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that a chief constable, found guilty of the unlawful use of petrol and fined, still keeps his job, whereas an ordinary policeman, charged with unlawful possession of petrol, but not found guilty, nevertheless loses his job? Should not something be done to regularise a position like that.

Mr. Morrison: This letter came only yesterday, and I am afraid I have not had time to examine it. Therefore, I must say that I am not fully aware of the facts yet, but I will look into it.

Mr. Gallacher: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse a grant to a watch committee which dismisses a chief constable while he does nothing about another watch committee which dismisses an ordinary policeman.

Mr. Morrison: It is no good my hon. Friend getting cross with me for not being able to answer a question on a letter which I have not read and which only came yesterday.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ACT (COMMON INFORMERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any further statement to make about steps which can be taken to prevent abuse of the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act by common informers.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I indicated in reply to Questions on 20th January, I should be very glad to get rid of all the antiquated provisions of the law which enable a common informer to sue for penalties: but any such general overhauling of ancient statutes cannot be undertaken at the present time. I have, however, been in consultation with the Lord Chancellor about cases in which the common informer arranges with the offender to compound

the penalty. Under an Act of Elizabeth such an arrangement requires the consent of the Court, and, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and myself, applications for such consent ought to be made in open court so that there may be public knowledge of any such proceedings. I am glad to be able to announce that rules of the Supreme Court have now been made to this effect.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation of that fact, may I ask the Home Secretary how many such cases are within his knowledge.

Mr. Morrison: The cases within my knowledge are very few but I am bound to say that it is thoroughly undesirable that they should have been dealt with privately, and I think it will have a healthy effect if we cause this to be dealt with publicly.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Home Secretary say whether this will affect the Sunday opening of theatres beneficially.

Mr. Morrison: I should not think so for a moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Leader of the House, consider again the desirability of giving the House an opportunity of registering its opinion on this particular subject, and also its opinion on the parallel subject of the legalising of Sunday entertainments.

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that I cannot add to the statement I made in the Adjournment Debate initiated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend consider, along with that statement, that he might well make it clear that, if artists want to entertain troops on a Sunday in a proper manner, no common informer can do any harm or interfere with such shows.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot make that statement because it would not be true.

Mr. Walkden: It is the truth.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS (MILITARY SERVICE)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has given consideration to the hardship involved in the difference of


treatment by local education authorities of their power to make up the payment of teachers serving in the forces to an amount equivalent to their previous salaries; and whether he has taken or will take steps to induce those local education authorities who make no such payment, or only payments on a smaller scale, to adopt the same standards as the principal authorities.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The position of teachers in this matter is governed by the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, which empowers local authorities to make up the civil remuneration of their employees who are engaged on war service. Parliament has left this matter to the discretion of the local authorities concerned, and I could not undertake to secure uniformity of practice throughout the country.

Mr. Harvey: Although the right hon. Gentleman is not able to produce power in the matter can he not use his influence and good offices with these local authorities that fail to come up to the standard set by so many authorities in this respect.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that I can add to my reply.

Mr. Thorne: Change the composition of those local authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the increasing difficulty of securing qualified teachers for elementary and secondary schools; and whether, in view of the seriousness of the situation in the immediate future, he will take steps to obtain the immediate release of teachers who are of low medical category now serving in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. But any general release of teachers and other men of low medical category would mean that men fit for active service would have to be diverted to essential non-combatant duties which would not be in the national interest at the present stage of the war. Already there is in operation an arrangement whereby my Department can apply for the release from the Forces of individual teachers, within the age limits qualifying for deferment, who are urgently needed for vacant posts in schools.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the right hon. Gentleman further consult the Minister of Labour or the various Services to see whether those who are of low medical category and are doing relatively unimportant work cannot be transferred to schools.

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member will see from the latter part of my answer, we do our best in this matter, and I can assure him that I am a constant nuisance to my colleagues.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the position is becoming grave.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I know.

Oral Answers to Questions — IDENTITY CARDS (RIGHT OF INSPECTION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health if he will publish in HANSARD a list of military, civilian, Allied or other officials who are entitled to examine a civilian's identity card; and the circumstances in which they may demand to do So.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as my hon. Friend desires, a statement of the particulars asked for in the Question.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the number of categories is now much wider than it was when identity cards were first introduced.

Mr. Willink: I am afraid that I do not know how many categories there were, but if my hon. Friend will look at the full answer which I shall circulate, he will be able to decide that for himself.

Following is the statement:

Persons empowered by the National Registration Act or Regulations made thereunder to require production of an Identity Card are a constable in uniform, a member of H.M. Naval, Military or Air Forces in uniform on duty and a local National Registration Officer. In the last mentioned case the requirement is limited to production at the local National Registration Office. No other circumstances are prescribed which limit the exercise of these powers.

By Defence Regulation 60 CC an officer of the Post Office as defined by the Post Office Act, 1908, is empowered to require production of a National Registration Identity Card in a Post Office. The circumstances in which this power may be exercised are set forth in the Regulation, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

The following further provisions are included in byelaws made by the Secretary of State for War under Regulation 14 of the Defence (General) Regulations which will remain in force or come into force on the 8th of the present month (April, 1944), viz.:

(a) requiring a person aged 16 years of age or over in any public place in a Regulated Area to produce his or her National Registration Identity Card on demand by any member of an Allied Force in uniform and in the course of his duty.
(b) requiring any person aged 16 or over who is staying for one or more nights at a hotel, boarding house, lodging house or Youth Hostel situated in a Regulated Area to produce his or her National Registration Identity Card to the person having the management of the hotel or other premises, or to a person authorised by that person.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES (WHITE PAPER)

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the Minister of Health when the promised White Paper on Water will be available to Members.

Mr. Willink: It is intended that the White Paper shall be available in the Vote Office on the First Sitting Day after the Recess.

Mrs. Wright: While thanking the Minister for his reply, can he give any indication as to whether we are to have a day to discuss it in the House.

Mr. Willink: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. McEntee: Can the Minister say whether the White Paper will be circulated to Members of the House before that date.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that we are on the eve of the gravest water shortage in our history as far as rural districts are concerned, and will he urge in the proper quarter the desirability for a Debate so that we can tell him something about it.

Mr. Willink: I very much hope that there will be an opportunity for a Debate.

Mr. De la Bère: Do the Government comprehend that it is all-important.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMP SITE (WELSH COAST)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in connection with the contract by the Admiralty to sell the camp built on the Welsh coast to a private firm, whether, at the appropriate time, it will be open to his Department and the local planning authorities to reconsider whether this site shall be used for the purposes of a holiday camp.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

British and United States Films (Taxation)

Mr. McEntee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money Great Britain has received from the U.S.A. since 1939 in respect of the exhibition of British films in that country; and are such sums of money subject to taxation in the U.S.A.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part of the Question, any income from the exhibition in the United States of America of British films would, I understand, be subject to United States taxation.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that American film-producing interests are estimated in resposible quarters to have received in 1943 some £20,000,000 and since 1939 close on £80,000,000 sterling from Great Britain in respect of the hire of their films; and if such sums are sub-


ject to deduction for income tax and excess profits tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I am aware that very considerable sums are payable to American film-producing interests for American films exhibited in this country. Such sums are not income for they have to cover production expenses and they are accordingly not subject to income tax by way of deduction, but income tax is charged in this country on such amounts as represent profits attributable to the distribution and exhibition of the films as distinct from profits attributable to their manufacture in America. Liability to Excess Profits Tax extends to the profits of any trade or business carried on in this country, but again would not extend to the manufacturing profits of a nonresident concern manufacturing abroad.

Mr. McEntee: While it is difficult to understand the complicated answer, is there not quite a difference between the treatment of money in America and the treatment of money for similar purposes in this country; in other words, do not the Americans have all the advantages and we have none.

Sir J. Anderson: It may be that there is a difference, as my hon. Friend suggests, but, as the matter is both complicated and to some degree delicate, I would prefer to see Questions on that subject on the Paper.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that Americans easily evade all Income Tax merely by charging their agents and distributors in this country, known as renters, high prices, so that no profit appears to arise in this country.

Sir J. Anderson: I would rather see that Question on the Paper.

War Savings Certificates (Excess Profits Tax)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum amount for War Savings Certificates which any firm has been allowed to contribute towards the cost of certificates for employees whilst charging such contribution as welfare expenses not liable to excess profit tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I regret that the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available.

Commander King-Hall: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the allowances which the inspectors make.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, certainly, but I cannot give an arithmetical figure indicating what is happening all over the country. They apply well known principles.

Commander King-Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what directions are given by the Treasury as to this.

Sir J. Anderson: The provision in the Act requires that the revenue authorities should disallow any expenses in excess of the amount which the Commissioners consider reasonable. There is no similar provision in regard to Income Tax, but all the facts of the case have to be taken into account and I do not think that there is really any case for complaint.

War Savings (Reinvestments)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has that the amount of money invested in war loans and other forms of war savings during special war savings weeks has been inflated by the sale of previously purchased war securities and the reinvestment of the money in new ones.

Sir J. Anderson: It would not be practicable, or indeed desirable, for the Government to inquire into the sources of subscriptions to War Savings Securities. But I think that the general public appreciates that any such practice as that referred to by the hon. Member is to be strongly discouraged, and I do not believe subscriptions of this kind inflate the totals of Savings Weeks to any noticeable extent.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Government, so far as it lies in their power, give an undertaking that the purchasing power of the pound sterling to be drawn out, will be the same as that of the pound sterling which these loyal people lent to the Government.

Sir J. Anderson: I have made it quite clear in a public statement, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done the same, that the maintenance of the value of these subscriptions will be a paramount object of policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH FRANC (EXCHANGE RATE)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the negotiations with the Free French Committee in deciding the Metropolitan French exchange rate, he will ensure that nothing is done that might disturb the unity of the French Empire and that measures will be taken to prevent an unduly high exchange rate which would favour the purchasing power of Allied troops as against the civil population.

Mr. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the proposal to fix the exchange rate of the franc in Metropolitan France by our occupation authorities at 300 to the £; whether he is satisfied, in the light of the Italian experience, that such a rate of exchange will assist the establishment of good relations between the occupation authorities and our French Allies or the achievement of reasonably stable conditions; and whether, before any arbitrary decision is made on this question, steps will be taken to reach agreement with the French Committee of National Liberation.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the concern that a too low exchange value will be fixed for the French franc when that country, or part of it, is occupied by Allied troops, he can now make a definite statement about our intentions in this matter.

Sir J. Anderson: From the nature of the case the rate cannot be announced beforehand, nor can I make any statement which might be interpreted as foreshadowing the decision which in due course will have to be taken. I can, however, say that the views of the French Committee of National Liberation on this matter will be fully taken into account and all relevant factors will, no doubt, be considered.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of what happened in Italy, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the exchange rate is not fixed at too high a level which will miliate against the conditions of the civilian population in France? May I ask quite bluntly whether, in consultation over this matter, he will consider thoroughly and adequately the opinion of the French Committee of National Liberation instead of the opinion expressed by the United States Government.

Sir J. Anderson: I have said quite definitely that full account will be taken of the views of the French Committee of National Liberation, and I can add that the object will be to fix the rate, as far as this country is concerned, at a level which has a reasonable chance of being maintained, neither too high nor too low.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Chancellor aware that statements have already been circulated in the Press to the effect that the rate has already been fixed at 300 to the pound? Does he not consider that such statements render a grave disservice to the cause of the United Nations.

Sir J. Anderson: I quite agree that such statements are greatly to be deprecated and there is, in fact, no foundation for any rumour to the effect that the rate has been fixed.

Mr. Astor: Will particular regard be paid to the economic, social and political effects, in view of what happened in Syria and North Africa and Italy as the result of the exchange rates which were fixed, and the other measures which were taken.

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly, Sir.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is somewhat premature for this matter to be discussed.

Sir J. Anderson: It may not be premature for the matter to be discussed but it certainly is quite premature, unauthorised, and mischievous to have rumours, such as have been in circulation, without ally foundation.

Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in this, as in other matters, the United States and the British Government should march together.

Sir J. Anderson: That is certainly our view.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are not responsible for those rumours which have been circulated elsewhere.

Mr. Gallacher: The "Daily Worker" is not responsible.

Sir H. Williams: No, it is irresponsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (DEPOSITS)

Major Lyons: asked the Postmaster-General the amount in deposit at the Post Office Savings Bank; and the aggregate number of depositors as at 1st April, 1944.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): At the 25th of March, 1944 (the latest date for which figures can be given) the number of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank was approximately 17,600,000, and the amount in deposit was £1,310,280,000 in round figures.

Major Lyons: Whilst welcoming that very satisfactory statement of affairs, would my hon. Friend consider giving more publicity to the fact that although there is a limit to the annual amount that can be deposited there is no limit at all to the total of the aggregate deposit.

Mr. Grimston: I will consider that, Sir.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the frequency of withdrawals has increased.

Mr. Grimston: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR FACTORIES (POST-WAR DISPOSAL)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many buildings or establishments built by Government. Departments for war purposes have been sold for use after the war; to what extent these transactions are subject to Treasury approval; and if he will circulate a list of the buildings disposed of together with the cost of erection and the price at which they have been sold.

Sir J. Anderson: There are very few cases where buildings or establishments built by Government Departments for war purposes have been sold for use after the war. I am arranging for a list of such cases to be compiled and I will communicate further with the hon. Member when it is available. Any cases of importance would require prior Treasury approval. There are, however, many cases in the industrial field where extensions of contractors' capacity have been financed and are owned by the Government, in respect of which a right of preemption has been accorded to the contractor for purchase of the extension if

and when the Government decides to dispose of it. I assume that the hon. Member has not such cases in mind.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it proposed to circulate the list? The right hon. Gentleman said he would communicate with my hon. Friend, but that will not give us any information. Is it proposed to circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or in some other way.

Sir J. Anderson: I should like to have a look at the list, but my desire would be to make it available to all hon. Members interested.

Mr. Shinwell: Was not an agreement reached through the usual channels more than a year ago, that war factories would not be disposed of by the State to private concerns, without the consent of the House.

Sir J. Anderson: My recollection does not carry me to that point, but I am sure that if there is such an agreement, it will be adhered to.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN AUXILIARY PIONEER CORPS

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what are the conditions as regards pay, bonus and leave that a combatant or non-combatant African enlisted in Swaziland, Bechuanaland or Basutoland receives on discharge from the Forces; and whether any special steps are being taken for his suitable reemployment in civil life and, in the case of disabled men, for their physical rehabilitation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): Natives from these territories are serving in the African Auxiliary Pioneer Corps. On discharge they are entitled to the usual 14 days' leave and are allowed to keep Army clothing. Sums accumulated under the compulsory deferred pay system become available on discharge. The question of rehabilitation is being considered on the lines explained by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his reply to the hon. Member on 15th March.

Major Lyons: Is the period of leave given on full pay and allowances? May I have an answer to that question.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should want notice of that question.

Major Lyons: If it is not, it is not leave at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS AND ELECTRIC METER READINGS

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now give further consideration to inducing the gas and electricity companies to utilise the services of one and the same man for reading the gas and electric meters.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The question of using the same staff to read both gas and electricity meters was fully considered in consultation with representatives of both industries in 1942, when the conclusion was reached that the difficulties in the way of the introduction of a general scheme of this kind were prohibitive. This question has been considered again, but I can find no grounds for a departure from that conclusion. The problem is a good deal more difficult now than it was in 1942, because many more of the trained staff have now been called up and it is not easy to replace them.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of small shopkeepers have had to close their businesses owing to shortage of man-power? Why is it that the gas and electricity undertakings should be allowed to retain them? This is not a matter which should be passed over lightly.

Mr. T. Smith: This is a long way from being a question of small shopkeepers; it is a question of general shortage of manpower.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the case that where gas and electricity are under one local authority, one and the same person could do the work.

Mr. T. Smith: In some cases, where both are under the same authority, the scheme has been tried, and in others it has been tried and has had to be abandoned.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Why cannot you concentrate like other industries.

Mr. De la Bere: It can be done and it must be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL RESTRICTIONS

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been called to the fact that the 10 per cent. cut last year in fuel has hit efficient firms more than inefficient firms as the margin of saving and reduction in efficient firms is less than in inefficient firms; and if he will take action in favour of the efficient firms.

Mr. T. Smith: This cut was imposed as an emergency measure to meet the growing fuel shortage. It would have been quite impracticable to vary its amount in accordance with the measure of fuel efficiency attained by individual firms, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, however, that the arrangements for review of the cut, on appeal, provide a safeguard in individual cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (EDUCATION OFFICERS)

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether education officers in the R.A.F., unlike their opposite numbers in the other services, are still employed on a civilian basis, although holding commissions; and whether, as many of them are engaged on technical instruction which is indistinguishable from that given by officers employed on a service basis, he will now take steps to remove this anomalous status;
(2) whether the terms of service of education officers in the R.A.F. permit them to terminate their engagements on giving three months' notice; are they then free to take other appointments; what proportion of them is liable to service overseas; and if he is satisfied that, so long as the present civilian status continues, sufficient numbers of them will be available for service abroad when required.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Officers of the Royal Air Force Educational Service hold commissions in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve but they are not embodied and they retain their civilian status. In general, those engaged on technical instruction are employed in the teaching of scientific principles and their application to Service problems. The conditions of service provide that appointments are normally terminable by three


months' notice on either side, though an officer who resigns is, of course, subject to any order or direction which may be in force or may be made under Defence Regulations. A large proportion of the Education Officers are liable for overseas service and arrangements will be made to ensure that a sufficient number will be available for overseas service as and when required. At this stage of the war, it would not, I think, be justifiable to make far-reaching changes in the status or organisation of this Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why the Royal Air Force is alone in this attitude towards education officers.

Captain Balfour: Because the Royal Air Force educational service is different from the educational services of either the Army or the Navy.

Mr. Petherick: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refrain from following the example of the Army, in which practically every civilian non-combatant is at once thrown into uniform and very frequently plastered with red tabs?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL PRODUCTS (SHORTAGES)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies of what British colonial products there are likely to be shortages after the war; and what remedial action is being taken.

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As this Question covers such a very wide range of subjects, my right hon. and gallant Friend does not feel that it lends itself to treatment by Question and answer. But if my hon. Friend will let him know what particular Colonial products he has in mind, my right hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to furnish the information required.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (REFORM)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee that shall have authority to send for persons and papers, to inquire into the future of the Parliamentary

machinery and consider how it should best be adapted to meet the post-war needs and, while preserving the rights of Private Members, function with speed and efficiency.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.

Mr. Smith: But has my right hon. Friend seen the informative article which appeared yesterday in "The Times" and, if so, will he, before the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) raises this matter on the Adjournment, give it further sympathetic consideration.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think I have anything to add to what I have said. Of course, I always endeavour to assimilate information from the public Press and to gather wisdom wherever I can, and the forthcoming Debate on the Adjournment, although a short one, may throw new light on the difficulties.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend always consider "The Times" to be a well informed newspaper.

The Prime Minister: It is far from my duty to give out bouquets or the reverse to the newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY CAR SERVICE

Mr. McEntee: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider recognising in some suitable way the service rendered during the war by the members of the Voluntary Car Service.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; but they have done very good work.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EASTERN COAST TOWNS (REHABILITATION)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister the terms of reference and the names of the members of the inter-Departmental Committee which has been set up under the chairmanship of the Minister without Portfolio to examine what measures should be taken for the rehabilitation of the South-east coast towns.

The Prime Minister: Various measures taken from 1940 onwards to prepare against the danger of invasion place the


post-war rehabilitation of some of the coast towns in the South-east of England on a special basis. The Minister without Portfolio has undertaken to keep their problems under review and to collate them with the Government's reconstruction programme. He will be assisted, as may be necessary, by officials from the various Departments concerned. This arrangement would lose in effectiveness if there were formal terms of reference or a committee with fixed membership. The security aspect has also to be considered.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it not a fact that some Southern and Eastern towns such as Southampton, as well as South-Eastern towns, have suffered very considerably under the same conditions? Will not these also be considered.

The Prime Minister: Where these particular conditions have prevailed, consequent on the proximity to the sea of these towns, and the danger of invasion, the matters will be examined specially by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (DISCIPLINE)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange for the responsibility for discipline in the coal industry, which is divided between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, to be entrusted fully to one Ministry or the other.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir J. Mellor: But do not the facts prove that new methods of securing discipline are long overdue.

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is really very helpful to embark upon That now. I do not think you could have more careful and resolute attention being paid to the matter, than that which is now forthcoming from the Ministers in charge. The influence of the great trade unions is one of the utmost consequence in all matters of industrial peace. I really should deprecate trying to give piecemeal answers.

Sir J. Mellor: While quite agreeing with what my right hon. Friend has said, is it not a fact that the Minister of Fuel and Power is responsible for investigation and recommendation and that the Minis-

ter of Labour is responsible for taking action upon such recommendations? Is not this procedure unnecessarily cumbrous and dilatory.

The Prime Minister: I think it is the most convenient that you could possibly have. As a matter of fact, these two Ministers are almost constantly together in this matter.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the Prime Minister think that when men are in a mood such as they are in now the best way is to get them together, talk to them and persuade them.

Mr. R. J Taylor: Is it not a fact that no nation has ever got so far into a war as we have, with the help of the trade unions in this country, so successfully.

The Prime Minister: I consider their record is a very fine one, and I earnestly hope it is not going to be upset.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (DISABILITY PENSIONS)

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War the basis on which sums as gratuities, as distinct from disability pensions, are paid to officers who leave the Armed Forces on grounds of medical unfitness.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In general, no gratuities are paid to officers who leave the Armed Forces on grounds of medical unfitness. The extension to such officers of any gratuity payable to officers on demobilisation is one of the many questions connected with the financial provision to be made at the time of demobilisation, but, as the Prime Minister said on Tuesday last, the present is not considered a timely occasion to discuss such plans.

Major Lyons: Is it not a fact that during the last war an officer leaving the Services on grounds of medical unfitness was given a gratuity which bore a reasonable comparison with the time of his service? In view of the difference that now exists, and that no gratuity is being paid, is not this a great hardship to those concerned.

Mr. Henderson: It is quite true that under the 1914 Pay Warrant provision was made for the payment of gratuities in


the circumstances referred to in the Question but the position to-day is governed by the 1940 Pay Warrant, which contains no provision for the payment of gratuities in these circumstances.

Major Lyons: Would the Financial Secretary consider asking the Army Council to alter this position.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement on the Business for the series of Sittings after the Easter Recess.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have first to inform the House that the Government consider it no longer necessary, for security reasons, to maintain secrecy in referring to future Sitting Days in the Parliamentary Papers. I think hon. Members, once or twice, have made observations on the inconvenience of this arrangement and steps will, therefore, be taken to restore our former practice. It follows, therefore, that public reference will be able to be made, henceforth, in regard to our future Sitting days.
On Tuesday, 18th April, it is proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill; the Second Reading of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Bill and Motions to approve the continuance in force of Proclamations made under the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act.
On Wednesday, 19th April, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates and the Estimates for the Revenue Departments. The-Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey and Ottley (Sir G. Gibson), relating to research and scientific knowledge, will be considered.
[That this House, recognising the vital part which research and science and their effective application can play in reconstruction, as a means of increasing our national prosperity, raising the standard of living, recovering our export trade and developing the national resources of our Empire, urges the declaration of a bold and generous Government policy of financial assistance directed to the expansion of teaching and research facilities in our

universities and technical colleges, to the extension of pure and applied research in all fields by the State, by industry through private firms and research associations and to the effective and rapid application of the results of research.]
As the House is aware, I undertook to arrange a general Debate on Dominion Affairs early after the Easter Recess. We propose to set apart Thursday, 20th April, and Friday, 21st April, for this Debate. It may be more convenient for the Debate to arise on the Motion which my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) and others have tabled.
[That the United Kingdom should do its utmost by close co-operation and regard for the different points of view of the nations of the Commonwealth to preserve in time of peace the unity of purpose and sentiment which has held them together in time of war.]
I must, however, mention that we can only agree to allow two days for the Debate if the House would agree to taking formally an allotted Supply Day on the Thursday. It is proposed that a Member of the War Cabinet should wind up the Debate and a Member of the Government will speak at the end of the first day's Debate, on the Thursday. As I have explained, the Government will have no particular statement to make on account of the fact that they are shortly beginning their conference. The main purpose of the Debate is to allow the House to express their opinion.
During the week it is hoped to obtain the Motions to approve the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) Orders relating to Wooden-Soled Footwear and Picture Frames.

Sir H. Williams: Is it proposed to suspend the Rule on the 18th having regard to the fact that Private Business has been put down for that day by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Eden: I think that may be necessary.

Mr. Thorne: Do we understand that, when we come back after the Recess, when a Member puts down a Question he may say Wednesday or Friday, instead of the First or Second Sitting Day.

Mr. Eden: Yes, he will have that ancient privilege.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: When shall we have a statement on the question of equal pay.

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can add anything to what the Prime Minister said the other day.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about Service pay and allowances.

Mr. Eden: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, another of my colleagues, said yesterday that there was nothing more to say except that we shall make our statement as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Granville: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the request made last week for a Debate on foreign affairs soon after we resume—not the war situation but purely foreign affairs.

Mr. Eden: Yes, I think I said at the time that I thought that that was desirable. It is certainly in our mind to have one at a convenient date after we return.

Dr. Russell Thomas: As the Debate on Imperial Affairs is to he on a Motion and not on the Adjournment of the House and we do not know the terms of the Motion, will it be in the widest terms.

Mr. Eden: The Motion is on the Paper and it is in very wide terms.

COAL INDUSTRY STOPPAGES

Government Statement

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I would like with the permission of the House to make a statement on the situation in the Yorkshire mine dispute. Before, however, I describe the position which exists to-day, it is, I think, of importance that hon. Members should be in possession of the history of the stoppage. As the House is aware two awards dealing with minimum wages have been made since 1942, the first by the Board of Investigation presided over by Lord Greene, and the second by the National Reference Tribunal for the Coalmining Industry presided over by Lord Porter. Both these awards fixed minimum wages for mineworkers, and it was provided that the minimum wage should include the value of allowances settled in accordance with the practice prevailing in each district

and, where necessary, averaged on a weekly basis. On 31st August, 1942, Lord Greene ruled that the actual value of any allowances received by an individual worker must be added to his cash wage for the purpose of determining whether he is entitled to any, and what, additional cash payment to bring his wage up to the minimum applicable in his case.
In Yorkshire on 26th January, 1943, that is, over a year ago, the two sides of the industry agreed the value of allowances for home coal for the purposes of the Greene minimum wage at 3s. 6d. per week per man, the allowances to apply to all underground and surface workers of 21 years of age and over. Because of the comparatively high wage level, however, few men in Yorkshire were affected when the minimum set by Lord Greene was in operation; but a greater number benefited when Lord Porter's tribunal made its award, and when payments under that award came to be made, trouble arose at certain collieries because of the home coal allowance. I had no knowledge of the Yorkshire district agreement on home coal about which I was neither consulted nor informed. Indeed, there was no duty on either side of the industry to do so. I obtained a copy of the agreement on 24th March, and on an examination of its contents it appeared to me to be inequitable, if not indeed illegal, to take into account the coal allowance in the case of men who were not, in fact, receiving the coal. After I had taken further advice which confirmed this view, my officials informed both sides of the industry on 25th March, 1944,that the agreement was not in accordance with the award. They concurred in that view and agreed at once to rectify the agreement by providing that it should apply only to those workmen in receipt of home coal. The two sides subsequently agreed to reduce the value of the allowance.
Strike action in time of war cannot be justified and indeed after 27th March there was in my judgment—and that of the men's own leaders—no further ground for complaint. Nevertheless last week the strike spread rapidly and from the reports I had it was clear that, while the county and local branch leaders were anxious to secure a return to work, the bulk of the workmen were completely out of hand and refused to accept the advice of their own leaders and, contrary to the


terms of the award, pressed for the complete abandonment of home coal allowances in the make-up of the minimum wage. Hon. Members sitting for mining districts in Yorkshire addressed many meetings and I am grateful to them for the assistance they gave. I think they will confirm the account I have given. The House will be glad to learn that the position has improved this week. About 60 per cent. of the pits are at work this morning.
The effect of this strike on the war effort was bound to be serious. We have lost over 1,000,000 tons of a quality of coal which is essential to many vital factories; coke ovens, gasworks and railways for instance depend largely upon Yorkshire coal. The stoppage has, of course, occurred at the end of the winter when stocks are at their lowest. Drastic steps have therefore had to be taken to maintain essential services, and, in collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, I have had to impose cuts upon industrial users of gas and electricity of 25 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. All necessary fuel supplies, however, are being sent to vital factories on prepared lists. The movement of opencast coal has been increased by 80,000 tons per week; and the export of coal to neutral countries has been stopped. Mined coal has been diverted on a very large scale, from district to district, and from less essential to more vital consumers. Coking coal has been diverted from the Durham ovens but this can do little more than enable the ovens in Yorkshire to be kept warm. So far, I am glad to say, it has been possible to keep nearly all gasworks in operation, but the position of many is now precarious.
This and other recent stoppages have laid bare some fundamental issues of industrial relations within the industry to which I am bound to refer. The mineworkers have long sought a national minimum weekly wage and by the Porter Award have now achieved this aim on a generous level. A minimum wage on a national basis and particularly on its present scale could not by its very nature fail to produce varying effects on districts and individuals. It is a matter of the gravest concern that the inevitable accompaniments of this national minimum weekly wage award should have been

made the occasion for friction, strife, and the loss of production by strikes and "ca'canny" in different districts.
The Government share to the full the apprehensions which have been expressed on all sides about the lack of discipline within the trade unions of this industry which has manifested itself particularly in the last few months. Without discipline on both sides of the industry collective bargaining cannot survive. In fact the whole fabric of proper industrial relations rests upon the honouring of agreements and their being carried out and interpreted in the spirit as well as the letter. The younger and less responsible men too frequently exert an undue influence. A special responsibility therefore rests upon the maturer members of the Unions to assert their position and to support the executive authority of their Unions so that agreements entered into will be properly observed. The Government are fully alive to the vital part that collective bargaining has played and will still be called upon to play in the national effort. The Government, therefore, cannot stand aside and allow collective bargaining or the machinery of conciliation and arbitration in this fundamental industry to be weakened or destroyed. Where the Government have intervened they have done so only to help in the operation of industrial relationships, to maintain the effectiveness of agreements and awards or to assist in carrying them out.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I say as a preliminary that we on this side of the House appreciate the very moderate language used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his statement? In view of the great difficulties that many of us have when we address miners' meetings at this time and try to prevail on them to continue to work and in view of the fact that the circumstances created for us by the Government in the industry make that very difficult indeed, may I ask whether the Prime Minister does not think that the time has now come to review entirely the mining industry with a view to the establishment of the principle of public ownership? That would enable some of us to speak to the miners without being made to appear the spokesmen of profiteering in coal. Is it not a fact that many of us have, for the last two years, endeavoured to prevail upon the House and the Government to realise


that a very serious situation was developing in the industry; and are not the Government and the House, therefore, mainly responsible for the difficulties now created in the industry.

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry my hon. Friend should have tried to convey the impression that the Government have any responsibility for an award to which they are not even a party.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that.

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend said that the Government had landed us in that position. If my hon. Friend wants material with which to go and speak to his district, I suggest that he should explain to the men what benefits they have received in the last two-and-a.-half years. I have gone round a good many coalfields and quite frankly my experience is that there is a great deal of ignorance about what progress has been made. I am prepared to take my share of the responsibility, because possibly we have not publicised it properly, but I cannot accept that the Government have any responsibility for an award to which they are not a party. The scheme which, afterwards, we did put forward for consideration has been accepted by the Miners' Federation.

Mr. Bevan: In order that I may not be misrepresented, may I say that I did not state the Government were responsible for the award? What I did indicate was that the Government and the House are responsible for the scheme under which the industry is now managed, which is revealed by all the facts as having completely broken down. Will the Government, therefore, review the whole situation as regards that scheme.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: While everybody is anxious that the miners should be dealt with fairly and, indeed, generously, and is anxious that the trade union machinery should be kept in operation, may I ask the Prime Minister to have it in view that, if it becomes necessary for the Government to take serious action, so as to prevent the war effort being impeded, he will have the whole House behind him.

Mr. Colegate: In view of my right hon. and gallant Friend's statement that there has been growing indiscipline in the industry, will he not consider restoring

to the managers, as requested by the National Association of Colliery Managers, the same power of discipline as that possessed by other industries working under Essential Work Orders.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the Minister, as one who, with many others, has had years of experience among the miners and has shared their life and understands them, to believe that the suggestion in the question of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) is not one that will lead to the desirable discipline we all want in the mines.

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend who asked that question has, I think, failed to realise that there are two sides to his proposal. If you allowed the one sanction which managements always had in peace-time, that is, dismissal, you would have to restore to the men the right of freedom of movement. I have discussed this matter with both sides, and I can assure my hon. Friend that both sides realise the difficulties and neither supports his proposal.

Mr. Shinwell: While I appreciate the great difficulties which have confronted the Minister and the Government over this coal trouble, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend. whether he appreciates that the Porter Award and what has emerged from it are now the subject of discussion among the miners and that there is a strong probability that the Award may be rejected—or I should say possibility? That has been suggested; at any rate, that is the assumption. There is a possibility that what has emerged from the award may be rejected. In these circumstances, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider—because this seems to be the point of substance in all this trouble—whether the alleged anomalies, which the miners regard as real anomalies, which have emerged from the award can be speedily removed by the Government in order to settle this problem, even if it means further expenditure by the Government, though not an excessive expenditure.

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the suggested agreement which I put forward as a proposal to the two sides of the industry, and which the national bodies accepted, is now being discussed in the various districts. I am 10th to believe that it will be rejected,


because it is a very definite step forward. With regard to the anomalies to which my hon. Friend referred, the Government made it perfectly clear several weeks ago that they could not expect the consumer in this country to carry any further heavy burden, because the burden is already heavy and amounts to something like £80,000,000 a year extra. The agreement which I put forward does, in fact, deal with a good many of the anomalies, and I have not taken any steps here without the consent of both sides. Within the limits of no further heavy expenditure we have in our proposed agreement removed as many anomalies as I think it is possible to do.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put one thing to my right hon. and gallant Friend? The men are voting now upon these proposals which I gather they are getting from him. In the event of the proposals being rejected on particular points, do I understand the Minister will be prepared to receive representations from the men's union.

Major Lloyd George: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me on that, because I am to-day meeting the executive of the Miners' Federation.

Mr. Gallacher: Has this not been a continually developing crisis since the beginning of the war; and is it not the case that only the strong influence of the Scottish officials prevented similar troubles in many parts of Scotland? In view of this situation, would not the Minister accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and consider the question of Government control in the industry, during the war at any rate.

Major Lloyd George: May I bring my hon. Friend back to what we were talking about? I made a statement and what he has said has nothing to do with the dispute in Yorkshire.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put it to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to the House that as consultations are going on, the matter might be dropped.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Resolved:
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 18th April."—[Mr. Eden.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

ELECTRICITY AND GAS METERS (RENTS)

Mr. De la Bère: I wish to raise the question of meter rents in respect of electricity and gas supplies. I am quite aware that on the Adjournment it is not permissible for a Member to mention legislation or to deal with matters which would require legislation, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not offend in that respect. At an earlier stage today I put a Question to the Minister of Fuel and Power asking whether it was possible for him to give further consideration to inducing gas and electricity companies to let one and the same man read both the gas and the electricity meters. The reply was that the matter had been considered twice and was found not to be possible. When anything to do with electricity or gas comes up and there is an inquiry, it always ends in the same way. Whatever is asked for is never found possible.
Over and over again, the question of meter rents has been raised by a number of Members in this House, apart from myself. The pressure of public opinion is enormous. After I had asked a Question a few weeks ago, the matter was taken up by one Sunday newspaper, one weekly newspaper, two daily newspapers and several newspapers in the provinces and the result was many thousands of letters to me, all saying the same thing, which was that it is time these meter rents ended because people have paid for their meters over and over again. Let us just see what the cost of a meter is. Roughly speaking, the cost of an electricity meter of English make, installed, is in the neighbourhood of 30s. What does the consumer and householder pay in rents for that meter? He has to pay 2s. 6d. each quarter or 10s. a year. Perhaps more, but very seldom less. It means that in a period of 15 years that particular meter has been purchased five times in the rents that have been charged,

and yet many of these meters are in use for 20 years and have been paid for five or six times over. No wonder the pressure of public opinion is great; but the Government have failed to comprehend it.
All that the Government do is, when these matters are brought up, to consult the interests concerned, and they are told every time: "It is not possible." The Ministry of Fuel and Power are not responsible for this situation because it has gone on for many years and they have not been dealing with it. Other Ministers have been dealing with the matter. If the Ministry of Fuel and Power prove to be sympathetic as I believe they are, I feel that there is a possibility that the matter will be shifted to some other Minister and come under his purview. Unless pressure of public opinion really asserts itself, most of these interests, who have for so long done so well out of meter rents, will be allowed to continue making very large sums each year. We have only to examine the balance sheets of some of these undertakings to find that they have made very large sums. You find large amounts set aside in respect of "meter rents and other charges." I cannot separate them; we are not meant to separate them, but it is quite clear that an enormous revenue is derived from meter rents. I believe there are about 8,000,000 electricity consumers in the country, and possibly more. They all have meters and nearly all the meters are charged for by a meter rent. The sum is easy to work out. It shows that a sum of several million pounds is being paid each year in the way of meter rents to electricity undertakings.
Are there any enlightened electricity undertakings? Fortunately there are, and I propose to give some particulars. One is the Spalding Urban District Council, which has sent me a beautiful pink sheet of paper to-day. The first thing that catches my eye is the announcement "No meter rents," to which I say "Hear, hear." That is not the only enlightened thing being done by the Spalding Urban District Council. Their gas rates are reasonable and their all-in tariff is reasonable. This shows what can be done. Unfortunately, undertakings who behave in this way are a very small minority. The thing of which I am complaining goes on year after year and huge sums are being taken from the public. I am not against private


enterprise, and this speech is not an attack on private enterprise at all, but it is clear that if private enterprise cannot keep its house in order it is inviting other people who do not favour private enterprise to come in and take action which private enterprise will not like. I hope therefore that, as a result of my raising this matter on the Floor of the House, these undertakings, who set out to render valuable service to the public, will see the necessity of taking some action such as I suggest about meter rents, and doing something which really will meet the public demand.
This is not a matter of temporary interest which will soon die out. The interest which the public has had in the question of meter rents has gone on for many years, and indignation has grown on the subject. When the Minister gets up to reply, as I know he will in a short while, I hope he will confirm what I say, by showing that he is aware of the very wide public feeling there is that something should be done about these meters. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House by reading long letters which I have received from various districts, all asking for action in the same direction. They all insist that their meters are old and have been paid for over and over again. They thank me from the bottom of their hearts for ventilating this matter. What I have tried to do in this very short speech is to ask, in all seriousness, that the Ministry of Fuel and Power should take this matter up really seriously, make the necessary investigation and inquiry and then see that those who have suffered for so long receive justice and a square deal at long last from the undertakings by whom they are supplied with electricity and gas. Having said these few words, I will now give an opportunity for hon. Members to ventilate their views on this all-important domestic matter.

Mr. McEntee: I do not want to delay the House too long on this matter, which may appear rather small, but I agree with the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) that it is considered a matter of serious importance by a very large number of ordinary household consumers of electricity and gas. I have not brought any figures, but I know that it must be the experience of many people that there are bitter complaints about the continuous charge made over

long periods of years for meters. If one goes into an ordinary shop and undertakes a hire purchase transaction, there comes a time when the payments end and the article becomes your property, but with gas and electricity meters you just go on paying for ever a very excessive charge, far more than the articles are worth.
The consequence is that the public generally have a feeling of bitterness against the authorities who supply these meters, and the feeling is growing. The Government ought to take some steps, and if they cannot abolish meter rents altogether they ought to see that those rents are considerably reduced. I would congratulate the hon. Member for raising this matter, which is of considerable interest to the great mass of the people who cannot afford to continue to pay these charges.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I do not think that anybody will complain that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) has raised this question. He has taken a very keen interest in the matter for a number of years. I recall quite clearly that just before the war, he asked permission to bring in a three Clause Bill under the Ten Minute Rule, to deal with this very matter. It is true that there have been and are complaints about meter rents. I would point out that there is no uniformity with regard to the meter rent position. There are three or four systems. There is the system under which rent is charged for the meter, another system where there is a two-part tariff, and then there is a pre-payment system. I am told that, generally speaking, where there is a two-part tariff there is no separate meter rent. In my part of the world there are no separate rents for meters; there is a tariff based on the rateable value of the premises and beyond that one pays so much per unit consumed. Some undertakings try to put the cost of all these things into the charge for either the gas or electricity supplied. I am pointing out that there is no uniformity.
While I do want to assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly very sympathetic indeed towards what he has suggested, I would recall that when he put down at the end of February his Question on this matter and subsequently gave notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he


did suggest a remedy in the Question. His suggestion was that after paying rent for the meter for a number of years the meter should become the property of the consumer or the tenant. I can see one or two difficulties there. Anyone acquainted with the gas industry, in particular, knows that from the early part of the 19th century there has been a large amount of legislation of a very complicated character dealing with it. I am told that in the early days of the use of gas for lighting purposes the meter was the property of the occupier or the consumer, and that it was owing to the difficulties that were encountered that it was found necessary to change the law and to give those undertakings a right to charge a meter rent. It would be pretty awkward and produce some complications if, after paying rent for a meter for seven or ten years, the meter became the property of the consumer and he had to move to another part of the country. Would he take his meter with him.

Mr. McEntee: Does he not do that with his gas stove.

Mr. Smith: Certainly, but if he took his existing electricity meter to certain parts of the country he might find there was a difference in the voltage there. There is no uniformity of voltage throughout the country. I am only pointing out that the remedy suggested, namely, that the consumer should own the meter, is not perhaps the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. De la Bère: I really do not think there will be any very great difficulty. After a period of years a consumer who had paid for the meter should have an agreement that the meter should be taken back by the company.

Mr. Smith: I am coming to possible ways out of the difficulty. It may be that after meter rent had been paid for a period the meter rent could be stopped altogether, or it could be scaled down. There are a hundred and one different ways of tackling the problem. Some of the undertakings claim that the rent charged for the meter covers other things besides the meter—the installing of it and overhauling and repairing of it. What I can say, to my hon. Friend quite sincerely is this. Gas and electricity have only been

dealt with by the Ministry of Fuel and Power since that Ministry was set up in June, 1942. Before that they came largely under the Board of Trade, I believe. My right hon. and gallant Friend is very sympathetic towards the point raised by the hon. Member for Evesham, and we know there is some justification for his complaint. The Minister is considering a good many aspects of the problem of the distribution of gas and electricity, and while he cannot at the moment promise any separate legislation to deal with this particular point I can give my hon. Friend and the House a guarantee that when we are considering other questions relating to distribution this point will not be forgotten.

Mr. De la Bère: He understands the importance of uniformity throughout the country. It is all important.

Mr. Smith: Although uniformity does not come within the purview of my hon. Friend's complaint, anybody who has had anything to do with gas and electricity knows that in future developments there must certainly be uniformity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, for one, feel dissatisfied with what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said. I realise that it would be difficult to allow the tenant or owner of a house who is paying rental for a meter to become eventually the owner of the meter. That would raise all sorts of difficulties in addition to those which have been mentioned. For one thing, if the meter were his property he could walk off with it, and the supplier of the current might never know how much had been used; and there are other difficulties of that kind. But is it not obvious that the way out is not to charge a meter rent at all? After all, it is for the advantage of the supplier that a meter should be there. He does not charge for the piping or the wiring, and why, therefore, should he charge for the small box which indicates how much has been used? Meters are very cheap to make; they cost very little. Why should it be necessary to go a long way round to right an injustice which ought to have been righted long ago and can be righted simply by not allowing a charge to be made for the meter?

Mr. Smith: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made. I only mentioned the suggestion that the tenant


should own the meter because that was the suggestion in the Question put by the hon. Member for Evesham, and it was my impish imagination which saw the possibilities of a few humorous situations arising. Gas legislation is not simple. In the hundreds of Acts relating to gas undertakings all sorts of provisions have been laid down, and to deal with the problem is not so simple as would appear on the surface. I gave a very sympathetic assurance to my hon. Friend, because I am personally interested in this matter apart from the fact that it concerns the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I have given an assurance that in considering other questions in relation to the distribution of gas and electricity my right hon. and gallant Friend will consider this problem as part of the general question, but I could not offer any hope at the moment of separate legislation for dealing with it. I told my hon. Friend weeks ago that we are sympathetic towards him, but there is no uniformity of practice in the distribution of either electricity or gas, and I can only repeat that in considering the whole question we will not leave out of account the complaint which he has so persistently brought forward.

Mr. Woods: I cannot help feeling that the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rather stultifies Parliament. There may be, as he says, a hundred and one different ways of dealing with this matter, but surely out of all those there is one way which is the most satisfactory, and that has already been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Come Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) has mentioned, and cheered, the, fact that a few concerns do the sensible thing and charge no meter rents, and it would be quite simple to make that practice uniform. It has been demonstrated that it is possible, because it is being done, the charges being sufficient to cover the cost of maintenance of the meter, which is infinitesimal. If this meter charge is allowed to stand we may presently have to pay for the man to come along and read the meter—although, of course, we already pay for that in the charge for the gas or electricity, That such a simple remedy as has been suggested, which is so obviously just and equitable, cannot be put through would lead people to believe that Parliament has become so congested and

clogged with work that the most elementary remedies for these problems which arise throughout the length and breadth of the land cannot be applied. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) has from time to time raised the question of the public being exploited in the charges for a few trivial things sold by kerb-side vendors, and we read in the papers this morning that immediate action is to be taken, under war time legislation, to put an end to that. If it is possible to deal with a poor wretch who earns a pittance or exploits the opportunity of war time to make a rather better living for himself, surely it is not beyond the capacity of the Government to deal with the simple problem before us. If we who are dealing with all the vast problems of a world war cannot dispose expeditiously of a small point like this it makes people think that Parliament is all that the totalitarian advocates have said that it is, both dilatory and inefficient. I appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to confer with his right hon and gallant Friend to see whether something cannot be done, and done expeditiously, so as to save the good name of democracy and of the Government.

AUSTERITY SUITS

Mr. Robertson: On 1st May, 1942, it became illegal to make or sell free style suits of the fashion that had prevailed throughout the ages. It became necessary that suits should have not more than three pockets, should not be double-breasted, that jackets should have not more than three buttons and the waistcoat not more than two pockets; the trousers could not have flaps or pleats or turn-ups and there were several other minor irritations. This interference with the liberty of the subject was not debated in this House, and was not decided upon by any Act. It was brought about by delegated legislation. The Statutory Rule and Order is signed by Mr. Overton and it is on one half-sheet of paper, and yet it materially affected the habits and customs and the dress of every male, from youths to aged persons.
I am reminded of a play which appeared in New York a year or two before the war. It was entitled "I'd Rather be Right." It was a skit on the Administration of the day. The late


George M. Cohan, a really great actor, took the part of the President. He was depicted as receiving citizens of high and low degree, who put all manner of crazy notions before him in regard to improving the government of the country. In response he did a little "jig" and sent for his shorthand-typist, and in the fashion of one about to dictate a letter he said, "Take an Act"—an Act of Congress which would become the law of the land. The audience laughed uproariously. It was a great farce. But that is the kind of thing we have been doing in this country for about three and a half years as a result of delegated legislation. I do not suggest that all delegated legislation is bad, because a great deal of it is right, but the matter I am raising is an example of those things that are not right, and it is not an isolated example. Someone in another Department—not Mr. Overton; it may have been a Mr. Jones or a Mr. Brown—wrote an Order that closed down the ice-cream industry overnight. Another man in the same Department wrote a Regulation on a half-sheet of paper which over-ruled the most important Act which we pass in any year, the Finance Act. It took away from one section of British industry the right to pay Excess Profits Tax, and the right to some return of Excess Profits Tax payments at the end of the war.
About this time the Germans were storming the gates of Leningrad and Moscow. We were fighting grim battles at Jedabya and Sidi Rezegh, and in the air and on the sea. The fuel trade had been taken away from the Board of Trade. The export trade had taken itself away. That may be one of the reasons why the Board of Trade officials felt that they should embark upon a scheme of this kind, but embark upon it they did, and they produced these war-winning orders. It is really marvellous what the long-suffering public in this country will stand in the name of winning the war. Anything less useful for winning the war than this I cannot imagine. The object was to save labour and materials. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, is he in a position to say that this scheme saved any labour and any materials.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Yes.

Mr. Robertson: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the vast army of officials of his own Department who have been actively concerned with this scheme, with the committee meetings that have been held with officials of the various organisations, and all the other endless work and publicity entailed in endeavouring to get this scheme into being.
The retail clothiers have to study the public from year to year and to know what are their likes and dislikes. They were not consulted at all. They did not believe in the scheme, but they loyally co-operated with the Board of Trade to try and make it a success. Time went on, and it was quite apparent that the scheme was falling very far short of expectations, both in regard to the saving of labour and material and, particularly, in regard to sales. The retailers' fears were well founded. The goods were not selling in the shops. The only man who would buy one of those suits was the man who was obliged to have a suit. Anyone who was used to having four pockets in his waistcoat to hold his pen, watch-chain and diary found it very difficult to get used to two pockets, he would have to carry his fountain pen horizontally in a jacket side pocket and probably find it leaking. But in October, 1943, a conference followed the annual general meeting of the principal trade association, the National Association of Outfitters, when Mr. Leonard Lyle, a very prominent and experienced outfitter and a past official, addressed the following question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was present. I am quoting from the Association Report. Mr. Lyle said:
If we were all merchant tailors or bespoke tailors we should not, perhaps, be concerned about the removal of the austerity styles, but as we are the sellers of factory-made goods to a very large extent we are very anxious to know what would happen if there was a sudden reversion to pre-war styles. We do hope you will give us a sufficient period of grace so that we shall be able to clear our stocks of austerity styles before the public are allowed to order just what style they like. It is a point which is troubling a lot of outfitters to-day.
In reply, the President said:
I have noted with interest the points Mr. Lyle has made and I will be very happy indeed to have further discussions with any of you whom you may care to appoint to come to the Board of Trade. I know you do not want any sudden change in the austerity restric-


tions. I am sometimes pressed to make changes in regard to some of these restrictions, but I know I should not have your support if I gave way without giving you reasonable notice. Quite clearly we ought to consult together continuously, and I shall be most happy to make sure, through these consultations, that you are not confronted with short notice, for which you are not properly prepared, as it would be most unfortunate if you were suddenly left without due notice with stocks of goods which had lost their popular appeal and were unsaleable 
On the strength of that assurance from a very high Minister of the British Government, the trade continued loyally to cooperate with the Board of Trade against their better judgment, and they laid in stocks. As the House is well aware, in these very difficult days for getting supplies, retailers cannot afford to live from hand to mouth. They are bound to place substantial orders with wholesalers or manufacturers, and they continued to do so, heartened by the clearest possible English words, uttered by the President of the Board of Trade, that if a change did take place in austerity styles, reasonable notice would be given to them. What is reasonable notice? In a trade of this nature it is not less than six months. Men, generally, feel the urge to buy a new suit when the sun begins to shine and overcoats are left off. Tradesmen buy new suits according to the wear and tear of their particular job. The pledge given by the President of the Board of Trade was not kept. The trade officials got seven days' notice. The announcement was made in this House on the 25th January of this year and, on the 18th January, officials of the various organisations were called and told this was about to happen and they were pledged to secrecy. They were told that they were not to say anything about the proposed change even to their Members of Parliament.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What date was that.

Mr. Robertson: That was 18th January. On 25th January my right hon. Friend made his public announcement in this House, and you can just imagine the amazement and the resentment felt by these loyal citizens in the men's clothing trade. It is not only the big store, it is the little outfitter's shop and the medium outfitter's shop, from one end of the country to the other—people who were imbued with the high ideals so often expressed by my right hon. Friend the

Prime Minister in his noble speeches and by other Members of the Government. You can just imagine their dismay when this announcement was made. Of course, the public rushed to buy free-style suits. Every bespoke tailer in this country is full up with orders, but the unfortunate austerity stockholder is in a very bad way indeed.
We are told that the reason for this sudden change was that the Secretary of State for War had decided that soldiers, on demobilisation, should get a free-style suit. Nobody would support that more than I. I do not think there is anything too good we can give these men, but I think they will want a job and a home a little bit more than they will want a suit. I think that a fellow who has lived in a battle-dress for some years will not worry very much whether his trousers are turned up or turned down, or how many pockets there are in his waistcoat. However, that is the reason advanced by my right hon. Friends. Much as we all want this dreadful catastrophe to come to an end quickly, I do not think the most optimistic among us can see demobilisation just round the corner, and I should have imagined, in a war of this complexity, where we need the most complicated tools for victory, it would have been a simple matter to give an order to manufacturers to make these free-style suits and to put them on the shelves with moth balls and leave them there till the boys came home. That however was the reason advanced in this House on 25th January for the complete betrayal of these stockholders of austerity garments and the complete reversal in the method of making suits.
What were the known facts at that time? The first is, that austerity suits produced no worth-while saving in labour and materials. Possibly, in the earlier days, there was some saving, but in the later days there was not. I am quoting from my right hon. Friend when I say that. He was actuated by that motive, although he did not publicly say so in this House on 25th January. Bespoke tailors in this city made demonstration after demonstration proving that free-style suits can be made—and I am certain my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) is in a position to support what I am saying—without any more cloth than these austerity suits. The other known fact was that austerity suits were not selling freely. Manufacturers


were not fully employed. Wholesalers were not fully employed. It needs no imagination to realise that if you check the trade at the retail end that check is going to run right through the whole machine, and that is what happened in the clothing industry. These were the known facts, and, although I am sorry to say it, I am bound to say that the excuse that this sudden change was made because of soldiers being demobilised is not correct. I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is riding out on the back of the returned soldier. He is attempting to get out of a rotten scheme. Instead of coming to the House and saying, "I have made a mistake; I take full responsibility for it, and I will do my utmost to make amends," which would have been the honourable course, and a course that would have commended itself to me, and, I imagine to most other Members, he put forward the other excuse.
At that time the public and the retail trade were told that if they wanted to buy these austerity suits, they could have them for cash and 20 coupons, but if they wanted the free-style suits they could also have them for cash but would have to give 26 coupons. Those experienced retailers who had not been consulted at all in the beginning, until this scheme was a fait accompli and had been pushed down their throats, went through their organisation to the Board of Trade, to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend and to the Director-General of the Clothing Department, and told them that this coupon abatement was not an attraction because people valued coupons in the same way as they valued money—value for money and value for coupons—and that 20 coupons was no attraction to buy one of these abortions. But the President knew better. It has not been his duty to serve the public all these years, but he said: "There will be no change. These suits will go at 20 coupons." Naturally, my hon. Friends who were associated with me in a Motion in regard to this sequel—200 of us—were very reluctant to raise our voices at that time. We did not want to come to this House and say that which I am compelled to say two months later. We did not want to cast any doubt on the possibility of selling these suits. We did not want to plant the impression in the mind of the buyer

that if he waited a week or two he would get the suits for 13 coupons. But the retailers told the President that these suits would not sell unless the coupons were reduced to 13, and, probably, they would not sell unless the prices were reduced. But no attention was paid to that. The "brainstormers" at the Board of Trade knew far better than those tradesmen. The trade implored the President to reduce the coupon value, but it was of no avail.
On 1st February, which was the first day of this scheme, some retailers slashed their prices at once. They advertised terrific reductions. They sold for half coupon value and, in that connection, if you sell a utility garment for half coupon value, you have to sell it at half price. I am going to prove that the only people who have moved stocks substantially are those who have done that, those who have deliberately lost their money. It may be that some of the bigger firms are only losing money belonging to the State, but that is wrong too. It may be excess profits in some cases, but not in the case of the little man. He has had a rough time ever since the war broke out. He has no background of finance; he is unable to cut to 13 coupons; he is unable to reduce to half price. The bigger people, of course, with their advertising facilities, have been able to make some progress but the record throughout the country, and I have spent hours studying certified returns from hundreds of retailers from Kirkaldy in the north to Portsmouth in the south, from West Wales to Grimsby, and the record is the same everywhere, that austerity clothing is not selling unless the price is slashed and half coupons taken; and if half coupons are taken it means there are no replacements. If a retailer sells a suit this week, he has to sell another suit next week, to pay half his rates, rents, wages and other overhead. Here they are selling stock at a loss, and they cannot get a replacement of an adequate number of coupons if they sell at half coupons. If they sell at 20 coupons the Board of Trade have a scheme whereby the traders can get 26 coupons to replace the stock sold with a free style garment. The President of the Board of Trade realised that this trade was suffering grave hardship as the result of this broken pledge, and he came to the House on 15th February, and said this, among other things:


I have also arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that with a view to relief in Europe, he will make further purchases of men's suits from traders who hold stocks surplus to their requirements."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 75th February, 1944; col. 20, Vol. 397.]
At first blush that seemed a very generous gesture. The reading of these English words left no doubt in my mind. I thought "It is all right. These fellows will get out. They will not make profits"—I see my right hon. and gallant Friend is smiling. It may be a matter of amusement to him, but I can assure him it is not a matter of amusement to the victims of the broken pledge, who are among his constituents, as they are among the constituents of all of us.

Captain Waterhouse: That is a most unfair remark. The hon. Member has no right to make an imputation of that sort, and to say that I was smiling.

Mr. Robertson: The last thing I would ever do would be to make an imputation which is not justified, but it did appear to me that my right hon. and gallant Friend was smiling. Goodness knows, I do not want to prevent anyone from smiling, but this is serious. In a few moments I shall read a letter from one of my constituents which will make my hon. and gallant Friend realise how serious this is. Those were the words of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. A day or two later I discovered that these words did not actually represent what was happening. All they meant was that the Ministry of Supply were going to take, at some time, the stocks of austerity style garments made in utility cloth which were in the hands of retailers. There are thousands of garments in the hands of all the retailers up and down the country that are made in austerity style but with non-utility cloth. On these, retailers have paid Purchase Tax amounting to one-sixth. They are garments made, in the main, from better quality cloth and made in a much better style.
From this statement it would appear to be transparent that the retailer was to be relieved of his trouble, although he would get no profit—and all he is asking and all I am asking is that he shall get his money back. But in spite of the Minister's statement that the Minister

of Supply would make further purchases of men's suits from traders who held stocks, that is the actual, miserable fact, that the non-utility styles are still the sole burden and responsibility of these afflicted retailers. I referred a few moments ago to a letter from a constituent of mine. It is from a firm established in Streatham over a century ago. The present head of the firm is of the third or fourth generation of the family. The firm is on the main Brighton road, in the centre of the "golden acre" of shopping. He wrote to me on 5th February, and said that the number of garments, and their cost, which he had in stock, were as follows: Three-piece suits, 148, which cost him £640; two-piece suits, 12, which cost him £43; jackets, 208, which cost him £445; and trousers, 156, costing £159, a total in austerity garments, counting three-piece suits and two-piece suits as one garment, of 524, with a total cost of £1,287. I asked him on the telephone—

Mr. E. Walkden: What is his total stock in the whole of his store, apart from what the hon. Member has just quoted.

Mr. Robertson: His stock of other goods? I regret I am unable to tell the hon. Member.

Mr. Walkden: It is very important. The hon. Member has quoted exactly what austerity garments this retailer had in stock. I take it that they were austerity, garments to which the hon. Member was referring? Will the hon. Member tell us precisely what this retailer had in stock in his store in the aggregate.

Mr. Robertson: Does the hon. Member mean suits.

Mr. Walkden: Everything in that outfitter's store.

Mr. Robertson: I think that would be abusing the time of the House. The heading of this letter shows the business to be "Tailors and Colonial Outfitters, School Outfitters, Hosiers and Shirt Tailors." I think hon. Members would have grave reason to find fault with me if I said that he had 1,429 collars, 740 handkerchiefs—[Interruption.] These all come within the ambit of the title of the firm.

Mr. Walkden: Give us an over-all figure.

Mr. Robertson: I have given the total of the kind of stock to which I am referring to-day, made in two kinds of cloth, utility and non-utility. These are the only stocks of clothes a man can legally have in this country. I asked his firm by telephone to let me know what their stock was. They wrote on 3rd April:
As requested by you on the telephone this afternoon, our total sales for the two months are as follows—six three-piece suits"—
that was out of 148—
one two-piece"—
out of 12—
22 sports jackets"—
out of a total of 208 jackets—
24 pairs of trousers"—
flannels, etc., out of 156. That is a very small percentage. Spring is passing, his chances of selling are lessening, and unless the Ministry of Supply or someone else comes to his rescue, there is not much hope for him.
I have a statement here which I will not go into in detail—I know the House dislikes figures—but I must use some of it to substantiate the claim I am making, which is based solely on the fact that these goods are not selling. It has been prepared by the largest of the trade organisations, the National Association of Outfitters. It shows that in utility cloth austerity style three-piece suits 75.9 per cent. remained unsold on 27th March; two-piece suits, 71.3 per cent.; jackets, 80.3 per cent.; trousers, 85.1 per cent. In non-utility three-piece suits the percentage unsold was 87.4 per cent.; in two-piece suits, 76.9 per cent.; in jackets, 71.4 per cent.; and in trousers, 85.4 per cent. That is the statement compiled from several hundreds of returns, not selected returns, of retailers and outfitters throughout the country as at 27th March.

Mr. Loftus: There is one phrase used by my hon. Friend which I would like to get clear. He referred to non-utility suits in giving percentages just now. Did he mean non-utility cloth or non-utility suits.

Mr. Robertson: I was reading from a document. It may be a little difficult for hon. Members to get this point. The infliction by the Board of Trade is one in regard to style. That is called austerity style cut. It can be made in two different grades of cloth, one utility, which

is not subject to Purchase Tax, and the other non-utility, which is subject to Purchase Tax. The suits made from utility cloth are cheaper than those made in better cloths, which are non-utility cloths. That is the statement of the National Association of Outfitters, taken from several hundred retailers.
I have a statement from the bigger people, the large stores like those we know in London, and of which there are one or more in all the provincial towns. This is a cross-section of 50 sent in by the Retail Distributors' Association to the Board of Trade. I have a copy in my hand. These people, with their fine premises, finance, purchasing resources, and so on, had an unsold stock of non-utility three-piece suits—that is the kind which the Ministry of Supply are not taking—of 85.7 per cent. after the first month of this scheme, that is at 28th February; 88 per cent. of the two-piece suits in stock remained unsold; 98 per cent. of the jackets remained unsold. I wonder if these facts are as terrible to other hon. Members as they are to me? Firms like Harrods and Selfridges are so badly stuck in the selling season, that they have 98 per cent. of jackets unsold, 90.9 per cent. of trousers unsold, 85.7 per cent. of three-piece suits, and 88 per cent. of two-piece suits made in non-utility cloth. That is a result of advertisement and price reduction so far as non-utility cloth is concerned.
There is rather a different picture as regards utility garments, which they slashed in price and reduced to hall coupon value. The figures for these are, for three-piece suits, stock reduced to 41 per cent—[Interruption.]—my hon. Friend will probably not be so enthusiastic when I reveal to him some of the details as to how that 59 per cent. sale was effected. In the first week only, before the Ministry of Supply rescue scheme came on the scene, these 50 retailers sold in total 1,254 three-piece utility cloth suits for full coupons, but they sold 2,133 for 13 coupons and at half price—more than two-thirds—

Mr. E. Walkden: It did not harm them.

Mr. Robertson: Obviously if one sells goods for half price and half coupons, and these goods cannot be replaced by an equal quantity of stock, it must harm either them or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even so, I have given the most


favourable figures. Now I will give some which are not quite so favourable. These great firms have 65 per cent. of their non-utility cloth austerity style trousers unsold, although they sold over 1,057 for full coupons and 1,830 for half coupons; 91.6 per cent. of jackets are unsold. They sold 500 for full coupons and 142 for half coupons. That statement bears out the contention of the retailers, which they made over two months ago to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that if the coupons were reduced to 13, there would be some chance of selling these goods, but that there is very little chance indeed of selling them at 20 coupons.
I come to another and very important point which concerns all of us. These austerity-style suits were made at a time of great shortage of labour and materials. Many of the men and women who were employed in the manufacture of them could have been in the Forces, but were deferred for this purpose. Precious coal was used to drive the machines and to heat and light the factories, and to drive the transport to carry these things up and down the country. I submit that, at that time of great difficulty in this country, these suits were made for British men, and that they should go to the people for whom they were made. If the Board of Trade will face up to the realities of this situation and down-point to 13 coupons, I believe the whole of these suits will be sold, not at cost, but with a profit to the retailer, to help him to carry on. Of course, the trade are grateful to the Ministry of Supply, but they would like the scheme extended to take in non-utility as well.
Where are these suits to go if they are not sold to the retail customers? They have, first, to go on the shelves, with the moth-balls, because there is no relief in Europe for which we can use them. When the day comes—and may it be soon—they will be handed to the Belgian peasants, the Greeks, the Norwegians, the Frenchmen, the Dutchmen, and all the rest of the suffering people of Europe. But I think it would be in the national interest, and in the interest of those people too, if they got clothing made specially for them. It would be in the interest, also, of the British taxpayer and of the British artisan. Everyone who knows these countries knows that the traditional gar-

ment of the men in these countries is different from ours; the climate is different from ours. If we have to look after these people, let us make something specially for them. I mentioned that the retailers who are making free-style garments are full up with orders. I know one firm which has 4,000 free-style garments coming forward next week, and these are all sold in advance. That means that precious materials and labour, similar to those which were used to make these unwanted and unsold goods, are going to be used again, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is so desperately anxious for all the man-power he can get. It is quite wrong that the looms, the machines, the transport, and the labour should be used now to make garments that are not necessary. These stocks are lying here, in these austerity styles, in sufficient numbers to clothe our civilian population for months to come. I am sorry that it is my misfortune to have to speak at this length and at this time, but the matter had to be ventilated here, and I only hope that it will attract greater notice outside this Chamber than it is getting here to-day.
It is suggested by the Department that you cannot down-point these suits to 13 coupons, although they will not sell. I do not think there is any doubt that if down-pointed to 13 now they would sell, but the Board of Trade may resist down-pointing until these suits really become quite unsaleable, for every day that passes means that more people are getting free-style garments, and the more unlikely it becomes that these garments will be sold. The British man has to be tempted to buy these suits, and the way to tempt him is by down-pointing, and perhaps by a price reduction. It is suggested that if that were done the public would become possessed of more coupons than the Board of Trade would find it convenient for them to have. That is a point, but I do not think it is a very serious point. I have gone to a shop myself to buy underwear and it has not been available, and I have had to do without, or to go to another shop. It does not seem a substantial point, because if this proposal is accepted, the Board of Trade will get 13 coupons for every one of these unsaleable garments, but if the scheme of the Ministry of Supply comes into being they will get no coupons at all and another great volume of free-style suits will have to be turned


out, at the expense of material and labour which we can ill afford. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently that he had never claimed that this Government did not make any mistakes. That was a splendid admission to make, and we all know that it is true. We also know that the Government have a very proud record, and all of us in this House except my friends of the Independent Labour Party and a few others have been very proud to support the Government in their magnificent efforts to carry on this war successfully. But the Government have made mistakes, and this is one. It is one that they can put right to-day by down-pointing these suits to 13 coupons, and by saying to the traders, "Do your best to sell these suits, but if you are left with any austerity suits, jackets, or trousers, in utility or in non-utility cloth, they will be taken off your hands by the Ministry of Supply." In that way the Government would redeem a promise which has been broken, and would render a service which is due to little men, who are very seriously embarrassed financially.

Mr. Loftus: I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), and it seemed to me that in the latter part of his remarks he was a little inconsistent_ He condemned the idea put forward by the President of the Board of Trade that many of these suits should be utilised for the populations in the liberated countries, and he urged that they should be sold at the cheaper rate of 13 coupons to our own people. Two or three times he said that our own people should have these suits, yet a few moments later he said that these were "unwanted garments, unsaleable garments."

Mr. Robertson: I am afraid my hon. Friend has misunderstood me; probably the fault is mine. I meant that they are unwanted at 20 coupons. The President of the Board of Trade realised that they were unwanted at 26 coupons, and he brought them down to 20. I had the privilege of seeing him, with a deputation of my hon. Friends, some of whom are here to-day, and we pressed that on him. He said that we were looking to the future, which was unknown. The evidence which I have been able to give shows that the big people, who, have been

able to slaughter prices and to accept fewer coupons, have suffered less then the others.

Mr. Loftus: That may be; but I feel that the idea of utilising these austerity suits, in utility cloth, for clothing the people of the liberated areas is a very fine idea. I disagree with my hon. Friend's argument that we should make special suits after these areas are liberated. We shall be so busy here that we could not afford to do that The need for clothing many of these wretched people will be urgent. They will be only too glad to welcome these austerity suits. But I support the plea of my hon. Friend that the traders who have stocked these suits, in good faith and on the assurance of His Majesty's Government, should be insured against loss. It is almost a matter of good faith. I know that in my own constituency many quite small shopkeepers have come forward to point out that this sudden lifting of the ban on free-style suits has left them in a, very unfortunate position, stocked up with austerity suits, which they do not think they can sell for 20 coupons. My right hon. Friend may say, "Let them try to sell them." That is all right, provided that they have some assurance that any loss sustained, especially by the small trader, will be made up, perhaps later on, by reducing the coupons or by taking away the surplus stocks for use in the liberated countries.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Does my hon. Friend defend the point of view that, because of an error of judgment by the Board of Trade, small traders, who have their capital and their coupons frozen, should be quite kindly allowed to sell the stock at half-price and half coupons, and thus bear a personal loss.

Mr. Loftus: I am afraid I failed to make myself clear to my hon. Friend. The whole point of my intervention is to beg my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that this loss—and it is a heavy loss for some of these small men—will not fall on these traders and that, by some means or other, and in various ways, they will be relieved of this financial loss, either now or in the future, and that is the only reason for my intervention.

Sir W. Smithers: The sole reason for the loss is an error of judgment on the part of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Loftus: I agree. I think the austerity suit has been an unfortunate incident. I think legislation should not be indulged in just for the sake of small items of economy. These austerity suits have a minute sale, if any. It was a futile and rather fantastic attempt at economising. It looked as if someone had been out to economise and had drawn up this scheme, not to make a real economy, but to create the appearance of economy. I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance, especially for the small man, that they will not have any heavy loss.

Mr. Guy (Poplar, South): I say, quite frankly, that the suits are not worth 13 coupons. To relieve the trader, as my hon. Friend says, they ought to be given away free. I will give an example. Will any hon. Member of this House suggest for one moment that this suit which I am wearing is worth 13 coupons? If so, I fail to understand their intelligence. I suggest that it would be far better to say to the shopkeeper and the traders, "Get rid of the stocks as soon as you possibly can, and, to anybody who has not got one, give them away free." The hon. Member who raised the question of these suits lying about in the shops has done a public service. I think it is all wrong to suggest that 20 coupons should be delivered up for these suits. I support the hon. Member's original plea. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this suggestion an discuss it with the trade. I think the Minister ought to come to the real point and let people have the suits free, so as to get rid of the stocks.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I think we all appreciate the very cogent remarks of the last speaker—

Mr. Loftus: And the demonstration.

Mr. Henderson: —and the demonstration, but I want to make the point right away that this is not an ordinary case of traders suffering a loss through an ordinary trade risk. The loss is due to the action of a Government Department. I do not want to embitter controversy on this subject at all—anything but that. I want to appeal for the sympathy of the Minister that something should be done. A pledge was given—on that there can be no dispute at all, because it was given in the most unqualified language, and at a meeting of the traders themselves. I

do not think for one minute that the Minister will dispute that. It would be a very interesting subject to pursue—in what circumstances a Minister is entitled to go back on his pledge. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister considered he was justified in doing it, but I think the House will take the view very seriously that a Minister has a duty to the country to fulfil his pledge, if that is at all possible, and that if, on the very rare occasions when public circumstances justify it, he breaks his pledge, then it is his duty to see that the people who relied on that pledge are compensated for any loss that arises as a result. I do not think that anyone will dispute that proposition.
In this case, there is no doubt of the loss which the trade has suffered. We may dispute or argue as to the number of suits lying about the shelves of the retail traders, but nobody has exact figures. What is certain is that it is a very high percentage indeed. Of those that have been sold, many have been sold by the traders at very considerable loss. For example, the utility suits previously sold at 89s., were sold by many traders at 47s.—much below the price at which they purchased them. There is this further point. By half-couponing the stock, they have, in addition, lost those coupons, because the Board of Trade will only replace up to the 20, and the difference will not be replaced. In the case particularly of the small trader, whose capital is tied rip in his stock, and who has no reserve of capital at all, it is a very serious position for him indeed to see his shelves stocked with goods which he cannot sell, and where he cannot afford, as the big outfitters can, to advertise extensively and sell at half-price. He cannot afford to do that, and he is left in the very unfortunate position of having his shelves stocked with his capital. I ask the Minister to give very sympathetic consideration to the very severe hardship inflicted on thousands and thousands of traders of all kinds, small and otherwise.
As I have said before, and this is a very important point, this is not an ordinary trade risk which the ordinary trader is bound to face. It is a risk due to the action of the Board of Trade, and I submit most strongly that there is a duty on a Government Department in these circumstances to do everything they can to minimise the loss. Even in the cases where the goods have been, or are to be,


taken over by the Ministry of Supply, there will be a loss, because, obviously, no trader can possibly hope to survive, as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has said, if he engages to sell after six or eight months, at the same price that he paid for the goods. It would mean that trading would come to an end. One does appreciate what the Minister has done so far, to some extent, to minimise the loss, but in my submission and that of many other hon. Members, he has got to go further. I do not object to what he has done up to the present. There was, perhaps, an error of judgment in believing that, at 20 coupons, the stocks would go, but he was quite entitled to say "Give it a run and see what happens." We have had two months, during one of which these non-austerity garments could not be sold, and at the end of it we have got these large stocks still on the shelves of the traders. I do suggest to the Minister that he has got to think again. It has been proved that, by down-pointing the suits to 20 coupons, that the stock is frozen, and, quite obviously, that is not an advantage to the country. Quite obviously, it is to the national interest that this quantity of stock—100,000 suits, 200,000 or whatever it may be—should go into the pool and be used against coupons. There is not a surplus of supplies in the country to-day. It is quite contrary to the national interest that you should have 100,000 or 200,000 suits on the shelves, even if they are not entirely satisfactory to my hon. Friend, though that applies particularly to the utility suits. In a great many cases, I think it is agreed, that the non-utility suits are perfectly good suits.

Mr. E. Walkden: The hon. Member emphasises that they are good suits.

Mr. Henderson: I said the non-utility suits. The point is that the utility suits sell for 89s., but the non-utility suits of austerity design may be selling for anything up to 14 guineas.

Mr. Walkden: And they are really good suits.

Mr. Henderson: That is what I am arguing. They are, but the public will not buy them, and the point is that we have to persuade the public to buy them. There are two or three methods that can be used. First, the trader can slaughter

the price. You cannot expect a small trader, who pays 10 guineas for it, to sell the suit for four or five guineas. He cannot afford to do it. The other way is to down-point them. That seems to be, in the interests of the trader, the Government and the nation, the most satisfactory thing to do, and I submit to the Minister, with all sincerity, that he really must reconsider this subject sympathetically. This is a loss to which his Department has materially contributed. We want these stocks to be used. The nation should not have hundreds of thousands of suits of clothing, which are required to-day, frozen on the shelves of the traders. The Government must devise some method of getting them into circulation, and I submit to the House most strongly that the simple method which, though it will mean a loss to the trader, will meet the situation to some extent, would be to down-point them to 13 coupons. I appeal to the Minister to deal with that plea most sympathetically.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: If ever a Debate wandered all over the place in a few minutes, this one has done so. If we take the views expressed by the four speakers, it can truly be said that the Minister has something very difficult to answer in the various arguments put forward. I prefer, however, to stick to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) who raised this issue. I believe he was factual and honest in his approach. I would not question his figures, although I do not think they were complete, but I do believe that he grossly exaggerated the position in which we find ourselves to-day. One would think that we had an abundance of supply of raw materials, and that the President of the Board of Trade, from now onwards, should set out to encourage everybody to make use of their clothing coupons, and buy as many suits as they could acquire for the coupons which they have collected. I leave out the argument of the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy), because I noticed that the suit he exhibited to the House, however it may be described, is not of austerity design—

Mr. Guy: It is a utility cloth.

Mr. Walkden: Whatever it may be, some tailor violated the law to sell the hon. Member the suit, but I am not reporting it.

Mr. Guy: On a point of Order. I would point out definitely that they are exhibited and sold as "austerity suits" and not "utility suits."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: (Mr. Charles Williams): That is not a point of Order, and the hon. Member cannot use a point of Order to make a second speech.

Mr. Walkden: I only mention that so that the Parliamentary Secretary should see the whole thing. It is clear that, whatever my hon. Friend calls it, I he suit is definitely not a suit of austerity design. Therefore, we can leave the argument where it is, because there is no definite evidence in it.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is it not precisely the objection to the regulation that it is not capable of being fairly enforced.

Mr. Walkden: The Order at that time laid down certain rigid regulations. The complaint of the hon. Member for Streatham was that, when the Order was originally made, there was no consultation with retailers or with outfitters. There were collaboration and consultation for weeks with the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the Government works before the regulations were decided upon. It is not fair always to say that somebody in Whitehall, or at Millbank, sits in an office and decides how we shall be dressed. It is not true. I know, and the hon. Member for Streatham and the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) know, that there were advisory committees and consultations and that all the best brains among the manufacturers in the country were available to the President of the Board of Trade, and that he consulted them before the Order was made.

Mr. Robertson: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member want to put a question.

Mr. Robertson: The statement which I made was one of truth, that the retail clothiers, whose duty it is to serve the public, have not been consulted by the Board of Trade, and I submit that they are the people most directly concerned because they come into contact with the public, and most of them have been so all their working lives.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a question but a second speech.

Mr. E. Walkden: I am not arguing whether they should have been consulted. All I am saying is, as the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting knows as a representative of the trade, that consultations took place—

Mr. Robertson: I accept that.

Mr. Walken: —and advisory committees were available to the Minister, who made full use of the advice they gave to him long before the Order was made.

Mr. Doland: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) was correct in saying that the bespoke tailor was not consulted.

Mr. Walkden: That is a simple point which is really not worth arguing. What is the discussion about? Is it about people going bankrupt? Are these small retailers going bankrupt.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Some may.

Mr. Walkden: Can the hon. Member produce evidence of any one man who during the two months this Order has been effective, has had to file his petition in bankruptcy? There is not a piece of evidence to that effect anywhere in this country.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Is it the view of the hon. Gentleman that we are only entitled to raise this question where loss has been sustained by the business community owing to the statements and actions of a Government Department, when they have been reduced to bankruptcy.

Mr. Walkden: I am entitled to answer the arguments that have been put forward—in the main, in a distorted fashion—in my own particular way, and I am trying to do it. The rescinding of the austerity Order or the introduction of the free-style arrangement was due to the War Office and the Minister of Supply in determining, some weeks ago, to issue free-style suits for men demobilised from the Forces. When the hon. Member for Streatham suggests that that was not the reason, I would suggest to him, in reply, that he knows very well that that was the determining factor, even if it was not the whole of the case of the President of the Board of Trade.
Take the position as it was. The agitation of the retailers began over a


year ago, and was to the effect that this particular Order was in itself unsatisfactory and unfair and that the public would not buy the suits The women have accepted the costumes and dresses that were offered to them. The designs were undoubtedly smart. The best brains in the country were made available for the designs. I went to a fashion parade where ladies' dresses were on show and I was very pleased with what had been done. As far as austerity dresses are concerned the trade and fashion designers and everybody concerned co-operated in such a manner that our women throughout the land are very pleased with the results, though there were one or two slight adjustments here and there they would have liked to have been made. But the men were not satisfied. What were the objections of the men? The first thing was in respect of pockets, and the next thing, the question of turn-ups. I kept a close check myself on Members in this House who were really buying suits, or were presumed to be buying suits, of austerity design. My hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar has exhibited a suit and I have no doubt he asks us to assume that it is an austerity suit. I have not observed a Member in this House wearing a suit of austerity design except the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I am not offering the hon. Member a testimonial, but the truth is, there was cheating on a colossal scale, there were violations of the Order, and the bespoke tailors were not playing fair.

Mr. Robertson: Some of them.

Mr. Walkden: I accept that correction, but there were many who, if they were not driving a tank through the Order, were playing ducks and drakes with it in every way, shape and form for months. The agitation went on and on. The manufacturers produced the suit, the wholesalers sold them to the retailers, and the retailers had the suits on their shelves. I make no apologies for mentioning to the House that the demand for clothing to be issued to demobilised soldiers began on the Floor of this House, and I remember asking some four or five Questions myself. A suit was exhibited in the tea-room. It was "cheap and nasty," and it proved that, whatever the shape of things to come might be for the

demobilised soldiers, the suit which was being offered—that monstrosity of a suit—was not good enough. In consequence, certain people at the War Office, advisers and technicians and people responsible for, what they called, the recruitment and demobilisation department, were, I believe, unanimously of opinion that some additional change would have to be effected. Side by side with this agitation, the President of the Board of Trade was being jockeyed into a peculiar position. He said he was not proposing at any time to make any changes whatever, but, as the hon. Member for Streatham said, that if he proposed to make any change he would give a sufficient period of warning of any fundamental changes to be introduced. The Member for Streatham rightly says that he did not give that warning. He was forced into the position—and he told the House so—by the War Office. Does the hon. Member for Streatham maintain that what the President of the Board of Trade told the House was not true.

Mr. Robertson: I do not want to attempt to make a second speech. I will rely on the OFFICIAL REPORT and whatever I have said I will stand by.

Mr. Walkden: The argument of the hon. Member, as I understand it, was that he wished to inform the House that the information given to the House by the President of the Board of Trade was not a proper report of the circumstances which had forced him to rescind the Order. I believe myself that as far as the President of the Board of Trade is concerned—and when he comes to reply the Parliamentary Secretary will speak for himself—that that is exactly what did happen. I suggested to the Secretary of State for War that he should make certain changes, and I am very proud of what has been achieved by the trade itself, in regard to the scheme for demobilised soldiers. They are not only good suits; they are a good rig-out. Whatever the hon. Member for Streatham may say about a job and a home for the soldier after the war when the soldier steps into "civvy street" and becomes John Citizen from now on he is assured of a good suit, and he will feel a dignified citizen, such as the hon. Member and I want him to feel. The argument of the hon. Member arises as a result of that decision. What does he say? The


President of the Board of Trade reduced the coupon value to 20 points and the hon. Member says that it should now come down to 13. But the President of the Board of Trade says, "Try and get rid of the suits as far as you can," and I believe he has also told the trade that he is prepared to review the position in the course of a few months. I have no factual details of this but I believe that that assurance has appeared in the retail trade journals. Does the hon. Member for Streatham really believe that the shops are not selling these suits—these monstrosities? I use the term "monstrosities" because I think that some of the suits are of monstrous design—

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member has asked me a very plain question. I obtained the greatest possible evidence from trade associations and correspondence, and I say again emphatically that these austerity suits, made in utility and non-utility cloths, are not selling.

Mr. Walkden: The hon. Member has given me an emphatic answer. May I tell him of my experience only this week? I called in at five different tailors' shops on Monday last. Many of them are friends of mine and they are truthful and honest traders. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) would not claim that they are all truthful and honest. What they said to me was "We are doing much better than we were doing some weeks ago. Coupons are bothering us more than anything." Many people are buying these suits, and the tailors or outfitters are actually lowering prices, as one hon. Member suggested, with a view to disposing of these suits, and some have had better luck than others. Some in the North of England are selling them a little more freely than is the case in other places. Indeed it is most attractive at the moment to save up one's coupons until one has 26 for a free-style suit rather than an austerity suit. One retailer told me on Monday that his stock of austerity suits was down to 20 per cent. He said he would not have 20 per cent. left on his hands before Easter.

Mr. Robertson: Did he sell them for half coupons and at half prices.

Mr. Walkden: He is selling at 20. Admittedly, he did not have an enormous

stock like the case quoted of the man in Streatham, who certainly seems to have been having a difficult time. [An HON. MEMBER: "So have many others."] There are others, indeed, but the picture is not so bad as is made out.

Mr. Robertson: If my hon. Friend is challenging my statements, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in taking him to the officials of the National Association of Outfitters, The Retail Distributors Association and the Drapers Chamber of Trade. Every figure I have read out to-day can be substantiated.

Mr. Walkden: Many of these people are capable of putting over, as Members of Parliament are in this House, an exaggerated point of view and, indeed, colour the picture very badly and often confuse the position very badly too. I maintain that visits to shops give us real evidence, and the only way he can find out what is happening in trade is not by merely taking somebody's figures, collected by some accountant, or by some person representing a particular vested interest. The way you can find out is by going into the shops and seeking consultation with the retailers themselves.
Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the case of the hon. Member for Streatham was indeed a good one, but I do not think he can afford to accept the argument that we should reduce the coupon value of these suits that are on the outfitters' shelves to 13. However, I believe myself that some slight adjustment should be effected forthwith. If, between now and September, he could make that slight adjustment, I believe that the argument we are having to-day will not be repeated by the time we come to the Autumn Recess. But I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to be carried away unduly by the argument that these people are sailing into the bankruptcy court as a result of this Order. It is not true. The traders' representatives are here, and they know full well that many of these people have never made such profits in their lives as they are making to-day as the result of the beneficial advantages given now by respective Government Departments in regard to the control of prices, and with the help of the President of the Board of Trade in particular. Have we not all suffered as a result? I know the difficulties of small


traders, but do not let us shed crocodile tears about it. It is not fair to keep putting this over. Big businesses can take it, I know they can, but the small trader carries small stocks and has been selling his suits in a manner which I think he has adapted to the circumstances.
The hon. Member for South Poplar gave us good evidence. It may be that it was a small trader who sold him the particular suit. What did the small trader do? He adjusted the suit and made it look like something that it was not intended to be It was austerity originally, but now it is a free-style suit, except that it still requires two pockets on the breast. The hon. Member for Streatham knows that the small traders are doing this, so the argument is not only for the small trader. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees to the proposal of the hon. Member for Streatham, he helps the multiple firms and big business far more than the small trader. I congratulate the small trader on his adaptability. I want to help him, but I do not want to help him in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Streatham because it will help the big people at the top in addition to the little people at the bottom. Consequently, I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to accept as much as he can of the suggestion, to give what relief he can, but not to make the mistake of being caught up in the argument that these people are bankrupt as a result of the decision which he wisely took when the War Office forced him into that difficult position. I ask him, however, to recognise that some difficulties have been created but not to be in too big a hurry to make the adjustment as a result of these representations.

Major Procter: I rise to take part in the Debate to-day because I think there are many lessons to be learned from the story of the austerity suit. There is a poem called "The Song of the Shirt". Perhaps some day someone may write another poem concerning the song of the austerity suit. It is quite true that the Government made a very serious blunder in demanding that style of clothing could be and should be regulated by Government officials. I hope that the lesson which will be learned by this Government and subsequent Governments, based on the experience of the austerity suit, is that the British

people refuse to be regimented and dictated to, especially as to the kind of clothing that they are to wear. The reason why the austerity suit remains unsaleable, cluttering up the shelves of big and little traders, is the fact that people do not want it. The reason they do not want it is that they do not like it. This country built up a world wide reputation and a very large export trade on the quality and style of its tailoring. It was silly for the Government to interfere with the style of clothing in the first instance and it would be worse folly to send out these austerity suits all over the world, especially to Europe, as an advertisement of British tailoring styles and British clothing generally. Whatever is done, if you do not want the people of this country to buy them at reduced coupon prices then put these suits in the cellar but do not let them go abroad as a bad advertisement of the British tailoring art.

Mr. E. Walkden: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me one I will wear it now.

Major Procter: I would like to wear one just to show the hon. Member what it looks like. I know that, from the best of all possible motives, the Government said, "It is essential that we shall win this war. Therefore, let us cut off the turn-ups of the trousers and reduce the number of pockets." The winning of the war has been the motive for the Government putting over a great many what I regard as silly Regulations. The people have obeyed them from patriotic motives, but they want these Regulations to end with the war and not carried on in peacetime. The working man now realises that in the attempt to satisfy human needs for food, shelter and clothes Government officials are not producers of plenty but only organisers of scarcity. The public want to live their own lives, choose their own styles, and to have a variety of styles to choose from. Therefore, I hope that no future Government will try to interfere with the liberty of the subject in these respects. Furthermore the desires of the customers are so varied that no Government Department is big enough to cater for them. The law of diminishing returns operates in the governmental thinking as in economics. Any Government official can only think of a small number of styles to suit a multitude of tastes. When the Government think of houses, you get a


uniform type of house, with little variety of style and generally fit only for jockeys to live in; if the Government official thinks of clothing he can only do so in terms of uniforms or austerity suits. The tailoring trade of this country has been developed by catering for infinite needs and has a world-wide reputation for style and quality. Therefore, I hope that the country will realise that when the paralysing hand of the Government official interferes in any line of business, the result will be inefficiency, bad style, and goods that many people do not want and will not buy.
The second lesson we ought to learn from the fate of the austerity suit is that the unsaleability of it is due to the operation of Gresham's law, which is that where you have two sorts of currency, good and bad, the bad currency drives the good out of circulation. The reason why the austerity suit is not sold is due to the operation of that law. To-day you have two currencies—the ordinary pounds, shillings and pence currency, and the new currency which I call the coupon currency. The surprising thing is that the ordinary everyday money which the working man and woman has had in the past has not the same value as this new pseudo currency, this regulated coupon currency which was brought in by the Government for the purpose of restricting the free use of the ordinary kind of money.

Mr. E. Walkden: It is not a currency.

Major Procter: I am ready to show—

Mr. Walkden: Surely a currency is money that goes from hand to hand and from pocket to pocket.

Major Procter: That is what happens to coupons. They go from hand to hand and from pocket to pocket. When a person buys a suit he must have £5 or £10 in one hand and 26 coupons in the other. The one currency is inoperative without the other for you cannot buy suits with money alone, you must have these coupons—this regulated currency. People do not yet realise it but nevertheless it is a new kind of currency. It is more valuable than ordinary money and therefore according to Gresham's law, the less valuable currency drives out the more valuable from circulation, that is why you have people hoarding their coupons. When they have to buy one of these monstrosity suits they do not mind using the

baser currency, which is the pounds, shillings and pence, but they do not want to give up their coupons for them Therefore, if you are going to help the private trader to get rid of his unsaleable austerity suits you have to do something about the coupons. The peculiar thing about it is that while the tailor can have a bargain basement and reduce prices in so far as ordinary money is concerned he cannot by law reduce the coupon price. The sacred value of this new bureaucratic currency must be kept up at all costs, so that, rather than depreciate the value of the new coupon currency, the Board of Trade are going to allow these suits to clothe the people of occupied Europe. That is all very charitable and worthy, but I would rather see the suits on the backs of some of our poor people.

Mr. Walkden: The hon. and gallant Member has not got one on.

Major Procter: No, because mine is a pre-war suit and, not being a Labour Member, I cannot afford to buy a new one, austerity or otherwise. The last lesson I hope the country will learn from its experience with the austerity suit is that to-day the State is becoming far too interfering. The austerity suit is only one thing amongst others to which we are submitting to-day. This war-time experience of Government controls is what many people have been working for all their lives. They have worked and voted for the State to take over all means of production, distribution and exchange. Well, this war has shown what happens when the Government do take over. The people do not like it. It all boils down to the fact that under capitalism you can have the suit you like and that under the State you must have the suit you are told to have.

Mr. Walkden: But would not such a suit be in the pawnshop, because you would not have a job.

Major Procter: I do not know whether an austerity suit is pawnable or not. What I want the working man to realise is this: There is too much State interference. During the war we have to put up with these things. We have permitted ourselves to be regulated this way and that by all the bureaucrats in the country. As soon as the war is over let the British people say that they will not tolerate interference in


their private lives by the planners, the super-planners and the political magicians who want to order them about and to dictate to them as to the kind of clothing they will wear. I hope we shall soon get rid of this new currency of coupons and restore the old-time liberties that have made this great country what it is.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) upon one point at any rate, namely, in regard to his remarks concerning the width of the range of this Debate. Having commented that it had ranged over a very wide field, the hon. Member, I noticed, introduced the question of ladies' clothes. That was quite a new departure, and I do not propose to follow him. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) also covered a wide field, and I propose to go back to the original point of this discussion. I wish to introduce a novelty into this Debate by differing from all the hon. Members who have spoken on one point—the Government's original policy with regard to austerity suits. My own view is that the idea, however well or badly it may have been executed, was a very good one. I believe it fitted in with the mood of the people at the time, and that it was a distinct contribution psychologically to the war effort at that time. But where I do differ from the policy of the Government is in regard to the way in which they brought their policy to an end. Whether it actually achieved success while it was in operation I cannot say, because I do not know the actual objects for which it was imposed. I can appreciate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), who said that the saving in time, material and labour was negligible, but, on the other hand, I think the Debate seems to have shown that the probable saving in overproduction was considerable, because everybody seems to agree that the number of suits bought by the public during the reign of austerity must have been considerably less than the number of suits bought had they been free style.

Mr. E. Walkden: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I am glad that the hon. Member appreciates

my remarks, because I wish to quote from his speech in support of my own argument. He said that nobody wanted to buy these austerity suits, or words to that effect, but the remarkable thing about his argument was that once the need for buying austerity suits had been relaxed by the introduction of free style suits he said that the tailors whom he had consulted were doing pretty well and that they were getting rid of these suits. Well, if they could not get rid of them during the time when there was nothing else to buy, and if they are not substantially cutting the prices and coupon value, it is difficult to comprehend why they should be able to get rid a them at the present time.

Mr. E. Walkden: It was because the coupon value was reduced from 26 to 20 by the Board of Trade, and because the retailers themselves slashed their prices. Those two factors caused the public to buy.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I am grateful for the explanation, because I did not understand the hon. Member to accept the question which was put to him as to whether or not these additional sales were as a result of a slash in prices. I quite agree that, provided prices are slashed, sales are being made at the present time. The hon. Member was quoting his acquaintances in the trade, and I have very little doubt indeed that they are important and wealthy people, with plenty of capital behind them, who can stand that kind of thing. I speak for the small trader who cannot stand that sort of thing. I say, without any heat at all, that the Board of Trade should know and appreciate the personal feeling which has been caused among traders on this matter. I have a letter here from a trader who wrote to me a little while ago on this subjects a trader who is not one of the worst hit because he is not what I call a small trader. He is a medium trader; he has a shop which has more than one branch, but he is not by any manner of means a multiple trader. This trader says, with reference to the President of the Board of Trade:
He has badly let us down. He definitely said at a trade conference held in London in October last, at which I was present, that we should have good notice of any change in austerity clothing. He said he realised how unfortunate it would be for us to be left with austerity goods rendered unsaleable by any sudden change. He has not kept his word. We have lost confidence in him.


There is no personal animus in that expression of opinion at all; I am merely quoting the impression which the President of the Board of Trade has made on a perfectly bona fide member of the trade by the unfortunate turn of events arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration earlier this year. With regard to small traders the Parliamentary Secretary knows far better than I do that the conditions of trading have changed completely since the war began. Before the war a trader could order more or less what he wanted, from whom he wanted and be sure of getting it. He cannot do that now. If he is to supply his customers' demands he has to stock up in advance, to lay out his capital in purchasing in advance, so to be certain that he has the stocks that his customers might demand, arid, equally, he has to advance his coupon capital and, further, has to order in advance. That is a point which has not so far been brought out to-day. When that had been done the decision was taken to remove austerity regulations with the result that the mass of small traders in the country found that substantially the whole of their cash and coupon capital was locked up and that, in addition, they were saddled with the responsibility of accepting orders, which had previously been placed, for further deliveries of these practically unsaleable goods.
That created a serious condition. The Board of Trade met it to a certain extent—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not overstress this point, because it does not go a very long way to meet the traders—by agreeing to take back the austerity suits of utility clothing. But according to the information which has reached me, these stocks were not the principal stocks of the majority of shops, particularly those in the smaller country towns. They were stocking austerity style non-utility cloth suits, in regard to which the Board of Trade have made no substantial effort to assist them. The only contribution has been the reduction by six coupons and that is an insufficient bribe to anybody to enable a person to remove the dislike of the austerity style of suit when he can get a perfectly good one instead. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to try and meet that situation in some way. With regard to utility cloth suits, if he can do anything to organise the collection of these suits into

requisite pools from which the Board will take them in hundreds it will be a very great help. There are small traders who have nothing like 100 suits on hand, and who are in great difficulty. They no longer have the transport or the personnel to organise and arrange for the handling of these suits and it is a great difficulty for them to be able physically to get rid of the stocks on their shelves, notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Trade were prepared to take them back. If the Government can help us in that way it would be something although I appeal for something greater than that with regard to the austerity style non-utility cloth suits.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): From a Parliamentary point of view it seems to me an admirable thing that this matter has been aired. Undoubtedly, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, there is a good deal of personal feeling about this change in our policy. On the other hand, I deprecate remarks which have been made about these particular suits and this particular type of clothing. It does not seem to me to be in the best interests of those who have these suits to sell that they should be disparaged, as they are now, both in the House and elsewhere. The arguments that have been adduced arise to a very large extent from a pledge given by my right hon. Friend on October 27th. There is nothing more unfortunate than for the impression to be given that a Minister has broken his word, and my right hon. Friend does not feel that he is guilty of any such breach of his word. It is clear that no changes of this sort can be made without their being previously heralded throughout the country. There have to be consultations and there has to be an announcement, but it is not always true that there have to be long consultations before any announcement can be made. There are many subjects on which grave harm would he done if prolonged consultations, which led to leakages, took place before an announcement. Therefore the announcement was first made on 25th January, precisely five weeks before it became possible to sell non-austerity suits. Suppose my right hon. Friend had done what my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) suggested and given six months' notice of this change.

Mr. Robertson: To the trade.

Captain Waterhouse: I am sure my hon. Friend does not suggest that notice could have been given to tens of thousands of traders without it becoming public property.

Mr. Robertson: It is the trade associations which would get the notice. It is the trade associations with whom my right hon. and gallant Friend has been in consultation.

Captain Waterhouse: Notice to the trade association would not he of the least benefit to a small trader in the provinces. It is the small trader who wants this information in order that he can make his future dispositions. It is no good for the secretary to have the information in his office in Victoria Street. In other words, this would have had to be made public. What is to happen during the intervening six months? Are manufacturers going to be allowed then to make non-austerity suits or must they only make austerity suits? Are traders going to be forced to take up the whole of the stock of non-austerity which exists and which is made during that time? Surely by the end of such a period one would possibly have a worse position, at least as bad a position as now.

Mr. Craik Henderson: We ought to get this clear. The Minister was dealing with a pledge given by the President of the Board of Trade. It may be true, as he says, that they had to do it in this way but the point is that the President in his pledge made no reference to that at all. The pledge was that they would not be confronted with short notice, and he said it would be most unfortunate if a trader were suddenly left, without due notice, with stocks of goods.

Captain Waterhouse: I was dealing first of all with the point of notice. The actual words were "reasonable notice." The point that I am making is that in these circumstances the five weeks that was given was reasonable notice and that, had he been given three or six months, the trader would at the end of it have been faced with a position not dissimilar to the present. Therefore I do not think that the traders' position has been worsened—

Mr. Robertson: My—

Captain Waterhouse: —by the fact that they had five weeks' notice and not five months.

Mr. Robertson: On a point of Order. My remark about six months' notice has not been answered, or challenged.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Member's observations have already taken up a lot of time. It is not fair to the House to rise up on a point of Order which is not a point of Order.

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. Friend endeavoured to intervene in the middle of a sentence. I cannot make reply if I have to give way in the middle of sentences and so break into the context of an intricate argument.
I agree it would be most unfortunate for a trader to be suddenly left, without notice, with stocks of goods which had lost their popular appeal and were unsaleable. That is the crux of the case. I hope to be able to show that under the present provisions traders are not going to be left with large stocks of goods on their hands that are going to be unsaleable. It has been said that these suits were never very popular. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said they were not selling freely, and others have gone a great deal further. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) said they were monstrosities. It is perfectly clear from the Debate that Members on all sides of the House—one hon. Member almost stripped to show what kind of suit he had on—knew that austerity suits were bad sellers before ever any change was made at all. Therefore there is no question of the Board of Trade having taken action by which a popular good selling line in the possession of traders has been changed into an unpopular bad selling line. These suits admittedly were not good sellers, and admittedly the public did not very much like them.
It seems to be forgotten in some quarters outside the House that the war is still going on, that we are still desperately short of material and labour, and that we cannot afford to waste this material, and therefore, when my hon. Friend says people should be tempted to buy them, I am not very anxious to tempt people to buy them. It would' be ridiculous to pretend that I was, because I have lost


most of my friends by endeavouring to stop people buying and, if I now stated that I was anxious to tempt people to buy these suits, I might be accused of having changed my mind.
When we endeavour to find out what is happening in any particular trade we have two natural avenues of approach, one through the trade associations, which by and large are extremely co-operative and constantly furnish us with most valuable facts and figures, and the other through the officers of the Board whom we send around. Sometimes they are called "snoopers" and sometimes area distribution officers. I prefer the second appellation. In this case there were three main associations to whom we went for our information. There were the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, composed largely of smaller businesses, the Retail Distributors' Association, whose members are mainly the larger stores, and the National Association of Outfitters, who are again to a large extent the smaller units. We were fortunate in being furnished with figures by the first two. Unfortunately the third were less well placed. Although they got figures from their members, they were not able to analyse them and I have not had the advantage of seeing them, but things must have improved lately in their office because they have apparently had time to analyse them and supply my hon. Friend with them, and they were quoted to-day.

Mr. Robertson: That was last night.

Captain Waterhouse: It does not seem that the figures my hon. Friend quoted are very dissimilar from those supplied by the other organisations. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade showed sales of utility garments, during the first six weeks of these restrictions, of 42 per cent. and of non-utility garments—three-piece suits—19 per cent. The Retail Distributors' Association showed sales during the first four weeks of 60·7 of utility three-piece suits and 15·9 per cent. of non-utility three-piece suits. We had inquiries made by one of our area distribution officers and, as the result of visiting 104 shops in London, by the middle of March, that is after six weeks, of utility three-piece suits there had been sales of 46·7 per cent. and of non-utility suits, 37·7 per cent. By and large it looks as if, on the utility side, sales had varied from 25 up to 60 per cent, and, on the non-utility side, from 15 up to about 25 per cent. But, of course,

it has to be made clear that these sales came about because to a certain extent there had been a coupon and price reduction. Many of these traders jumped into this trouble themselves.
On 1st February new coupons were being issued. Many people had been waiting to buy their suits. I believe it was an unnecessary, and I am sure it was an unwise, thing for those concerned to weigh in with a heavy coupon and price reduction before they had tested the market at all. Coming back to the figures, some of my hon. Friends know a great deal more about the details of the business than I do, but what is the normal speed of turnover of ready-made suits? Can a manufacturer sell his whole stock in much less than six months? If he can turn over his stocks twice in a year, would he not consider it good business.

Mr. E. Walkden: He does it two and a half times.

Captain Waterhouse: That means he does it every four or five months. There is no evidence of a great slowing down here in the amount of sales which have been made. The worst of the non-utility suits sell 15 per cent. in a month, which is slower, but it is not very much slower, than the ordinary speed of sale which has been suggested as normality. I want to make it clear that I am not saving there is no problem here. I know there is a problem. What I am trying to show is that it has been exaggerated and that by this very exaggeration it has been made worse than it otherwise would have been. I am aware, too, that average figures are always delusive. There is no such thing as an average man, and I take it, therefore, that there is no such thing as an average shop. When I produced these figures the other day my hon. Friend pointed out to me that they included those of a large store in Scotland which had sold a great many suits at a cut price and that the figures were warped for that reason. That may well be so, and I appreciate that there will be many cases in the country as a whole where small traders have found that this alteration has had a definitely bad effect on their trade. That I admit, and I am very sorry for them.
What are we doing in order to fulfil the President's pledge that he would not let this loss fall on the traders? These suits divide themselves into those which


are made of utility cloth and those which are made of non-utility cloth. In production the utility is about 80 per cent. and the non-utility about 20 per cent. That probably does not apply to the stocks because the sales of non-utility are always slower than those of the utility, and, therefore, the stocks may be larger, but the production figures are between 75 and 80 per cent. of utility and between 20 and 25 per cent. of non-utility.

Mr. Doland: That is not money value.

Captain Waterhouse: No, these are suits. The point I want to bring out is that the non-utility suits even in value, are a great deal less than half, and in quantity are probably about one quarter. On the utility side the position has been fairly clear. My right hon. Friend announced in the House some time ago that the Ministry of Supply were prepared to buy all the properly made utility suits which became available if they could be put in blocks of not fewer than 100. We asked the trade associations to help us and to act as our agents in sampling these suits. Some of the trade associations have done what they could. One of them unhappily gave an absolutely inaccurate and misleading interview to the Press recently, which did harm both to its own reputation and to the object which it no doubt was genuinely trying to attain in gingering us up. The trade associations said they would undertake to sample the suits, and when the sampling is completed the Ministry of Supply will buy in lots of 100. I hope it may be possible to get a lower number than too accepted, because quite clearly in small provincial towns it is not easy for two or three traders to get together and make up a parcel of Rio suits. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will take such steps as are reasonably possible, in consultation with the Ministry of Supply to find ways and means of taking small lots from small traders. In saying that, I emphasise that we have the right to expect in the future, as in the past, that we may have the wholehearted help of the trade associations in that endeavour.
Let us turn to the non-utility suits. These suits are excellent. The utility are good, but these are excellent. They are first-class work and material and are well cut. It is true that the trousers are not turned-

up and that there are several pockets short, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) pointed out, they are first-class suits and should commend themselves to anybody who is at all coupon short. After all, there is a material difference, when one has only 48 coupons in the year, between buying a suit which costs 20 coupons and a suit which costs 26. I have to admit that so far I have not found a way of dealing with the problem of these suits. I do not admit that it is as acute as some of my hon. Friends appear to think, but it is a problem. We are doing our utmost to find outlets for these suits and we will continue that endeavour. That is as much as I can say on that particular line, except this. Somebody went so far as to say that before these restrictions were removed they were completely disregarded; the word "cheated" was used about it. There is now no question of cheating. If you want to put in another pocket or want to turn up the trousers, I cannot see that it is so difficult to get certain alterations made in some of these suits which will make them as good from the point of view of the wearer as the non-austerity. If the alterations are done at home subsequent to purchase they will not require the extra coupons, and the buyer will get a suit with turn-up trousers if he wants them and an extra pair of pockets in his waistcoat for 20 instead of 26 coupons.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Sell a big suit to a small customer.

Captain Waterhouse: That has been thought of before. I may tell the House that the length of people's legs has, over the last two years, increased by an average of 2 inches. If I may sum up the position, as always the hardship which this alteration has involved is unequal. Some traders will not feel it, but other traders will feel it considerably. There certainly has been no cessation of sales, and the slackening of sales which has taken place has not been by and large sufficiently grave to justify the fear which has been aroused in the minds of traders. I hope that, as the result of this Debate, and possibly of what I am saying now, traders will be encouraged to take a better view of their own affairs and not decide to cut either the coupon rate or the price rate of the suits which are left. On the utility


side, there is really no problem at all except one of administration, and I have undertaken to do my best to solve that. These suits are eventually to be taken by the Ministry of Supply, and that meets three-quarters of the problem. On the non-utility side, I admit that there is a problem which is not yet completely solved. The rate of sales of these suits has always been much slower than that of the utility. We therefore have more time in which to take a proper view. My right hon. Friend and I will not give any encouragement to those who think there should be a reduction of coupons. We have come definitely to the conclusion that that would be unwise. With that clear understanding, the House may take it as definite that we will do all that we can by other means to find ways for relieving traders of suits which they ultimately find unsaleable, but we expect them to help themselves and to do their utmost to sell their own wares through the normal channels.

CIVIL DEFENCE (INJURED PERSONNEL)

Sir Alfred Beit: The usual reason for bringing up a subject on the Adjournment is an unsatisfactory reply at Question time. My particular point is no exception to that, but there is an additional one on this occasion in that there appears to have been a misundertaking between myself and the Home Secretary. It is difficult to see how it arose. The Question I asked the Home Secretary on 30th March was:
If he has considered the representations from the Association of Chief Wardens, London Region, complaining of the inadequacy of war service injuries allowances for part-time as opposed to full-time, Civil Defence Workers; and whether he will now consider putting them on an equal footing.
After the Home Secretary had given the answer, I asked in a supplementary why part-time workers should, after 13 weeks, suffer a reduction in injuries payment as opposed to full-time workers. To that he replied:
I wish my hon. Friend had made that clear in his Question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3oth March, 1944; cols. 1529–30, vol. 398.]
In point of fact, that was what the whole question was about, and I do not think that hon. Members who hear me repeat it to-day will be in any doubt that it was made amply clear in my original Question. This matter was brought to

my notice originally by the borough council of the constituency which I represent, but it had been initiated by the Association of Chief Wardens, London Region, and strongly supported by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. The matter does not exclusively affect London, but it happens that London has mostly suffered from a recrudescence of enemy raids. That destruction might at any moment spread to other parts of the country. This is, therefore, by no means a London matter, and it will be of interest to other Members.
I should like to recite the facts. A civilian injured by enemy action is entitled to benefit under the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme. That is an elaborate scheme which is based on a sliding scale, but it boils down to this, that approximately 35s. a week is payable to the individual when out of hospital, a lesser sum to a single person in hospital, and, for a married man, there are additional allowances when out of hospital.
Broadly speaking, these are the allowances which are paid to the great mass of the people throughout the country who suffer these injuries, whether at work, whether in the streets, or whether in their beds. Civil Defence workers are, very properly, in a better position, but there does arise an anomaly which is the subject of my remarks. A full-time Civil Defence worker, injured by enemy action while on duty, receives, as a matter of right, the small amount to which I have just referred under the personal injuries scheme for civilians, but the local authority may increase that allowance, in order to bring him up to the full basic pay of a Civil Defence worker appropriate to his rank. In the case of the ordinary ranker, the payment is £3 18s. 6d. a week for a man and £2 15s. for a woman. There are higher figures for higher ranks. This additional payment may be made by the local authority for 26 weeks.
This brings the full-time Civil Defence worker more or less into line with the Armed Forces. There is a very great difference in the case of the part-time worker. Here the local authority can increase the amount payable as a matter of right under the civilian scheme to an amount representing the normal earnings, or the Civil Defence basic pay, whichever


is the lower, but for 13 weeks only. In other words, he is at a disadvantage compared with the full-time Civil Defence worker, by a matter of three months. If he is unable to return to his work after the 13 weeks, he reverts to the considerably lower rate of the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme. It is in this discrimination that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the unfairness lies.
I do not think it is reasonable to answer that part-timers are on a basis of equality with other civilians, and that they enjoy for 13 weeks an additional advantage because of the fact that the local authority can make their pay up for 13 weeks. The cases are entirely different. I do not see how it is possible to compare the part-time Civil Defence worker and the ordinary civilian. The contention of the Metropolitan Boroughs is that part-time Civil Defence workers, and fire-guards—I must add that—should be on the same basis as regular Civil Defence personnel. In point of fact their risks when on duty are exactly the same, and they are very much in excess of the risks undergone by the ordinary civilian, who can go into a shelter, or into a tube, or, if he prefers it, can go underneath his own staircase. If the ordinary civilian is out in a raid he has only himself to blame. There is practically no place in which he cannot find some sort of shelter, but this does not apply to the Civil Defence worker.
I want to give a particular case which has been brought to my attention of how this discrepancy operates. It happens that, in the borough which I represent, though not absolutely in my part of it, we have had two cases which illustrate this point extremely clearly. Two men were both severely injured on duty during raids in February of this year. I will first take the case of the full-time Civil Defence worker. He is a head fireguard and he has a weekly wage of £4 18s. 6d. He has received severe stomach injuries, caused by the exploding of an anti-aircraft shell while he was on duty in the open. To him is made a payment which is made up between the Ministry of Pensions and the local authority to exactly the same amount as he earned when on duty, £4 18s. 6d. He is allowed that sum for 26 weeks and it will be increased by a further 8s. 9d. per week in respect of his

wife and child, when he is discharged from hospital.
I want to compare that case with the other case, which is of a part-time Civil Defence worker, and here the man is a senior fire guard. His ordinary occupation is that of a baker's salesman, and his weekly wage is£5. He suffered from a broken ankle while on duty during the raid, and he is at present in receipt of £4 3s. 6d. a week, which is the rate of a full-time senior fire guard. We have no complaints about the amount, but it lasts for only 13 weeks. After the 13 weeks, if he is unable to return to work—and I should have thought there was some doubt about it, in the case of a fractured ankle—what is he to rely on? He has only got his civilian injuries payment of 35s. a week for his wife and two children as well as himself, and that is a very severe reduction from £4 3s. 6d. which he is getting now. His counterpart full-time worker will continue to enjoy benefit for a further 13 weeks.
I am informed by the Standing Joint Committee that the arguments put forward by the Ministry of Home Security against any equalisation of treatment in those two cases are four in number. The first is that the principles underlying the conditions for whole-time personnel are distinct from those which apply to part-time personnel. They go on to the second, which is that the whole-time Civil Defence worker's position is equated as closely as possible to that of the Armed Services. Thirdly, the Minister apparently states that, in the case of part-time workers, they are gainfully employed, earning their living in some other way, and that their service in Civil Defence represents a contribution to national service which, in the present time, is an obligation resting upon all citizens. That, I gather, is the reason why the Minister thinks it is fair to differentiate between them. I rather suspect that the fourth argument is the most powerful weapon in the hon. Lady's armoury, and that is that, in point of fact, part-time Civil Defence workers do not suffer the same risk as full-time workers, in view of the fact that they are not on duty every night. I suppose there is something in that argument, but it is precious little consolation to the man who happens to get struck by a shell on the night when he is on duty. I think there is a case to be made out that these people


are really in the same category and that they are entirely separate in the matter of risks from the ordinary civilians, who are placed in rather more comfortable circumstances than are the A.R.P. personnel.
The hon. Lady may tell us that her right hon. Friend differentiates between those people, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. The fact that the part-timers are gainfully employed means absolutely nothing if they are unable to go back to their work after the 13 weeks. In many cases, particularly in the one that I cited, there is no evidence of being able to go back after incapacitation. The duties are hazardous, and are shared equally on the nights on duty by full-time and part-time personnel. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us that she is prepared to remove this anomally.

Sir Percy Harris: I intervene as a London Member to support the hon. Member in bringing this burning issue to the forefront. We owe a special obligation—I insist upon this—to the part-time workers. I am sure that the hon. Lady will recognise that the men and women—we have to remember that women are included in this work—who, after a long day's work, do part-time Civil Defence work undergo an exceptional nervous strain. They work perhaps for long hours in an office or some other job and then go out during the noise and risk of an air raid. Their contribution may almost be greater than that of men and women who make it their profession or occupation during the war. I maintain that, by doing this work, the part-time workers are making a very considerable contribution to the war effort. If, when they go down the streets when bombs and bits of shell are falling, they have in their minds the idea that, in addition to the risk, if they are injured they will not be so well off as the full-time professional Civil Defence workers, it may add considerably to the nervous strain. Obviously, employers cannot be expected to make themselves responsible for compensation in cases when injury is caused by an occupation that is not within the employer's control. I therefore think that a case has been made out that those who do part-time work are entitled to equally generous treatment with those who make this work their full-time occupation.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not desire to detain the House or to recapitulate arguments which have already been used, but I certainly think there is a case here for consideration by the Government. It is true that one may argue that a man who is employed part-time should not be given the same cover as a man who is employed full-time, but we are covering a risk which is incurred during a particular point in time. A man who is on duty on a Wednesday evening and happens to be injured suffers in precisely the same way as a man who is on duty for six other nights and happens to be injured only on the seventh. The argument might possibly be advanced that the first man is covered in his civilian occupation while the full-time worker is not, but we ask these two men to undertake certain public duties, and if, in the course of those duties, they are injured, we should compensate them equally for the injuries suffered, irrespective of whether they are part-time or full-time workers. There is no doubt that there is a serious grievance in this matter, and I hope that the hon. Lady, if she cannot give a definite answer now, will ask her right hon. Friend to consider the matter further in order to see whether something better can be done for these people than is done at present.

Mr. Viant: I want it to be known that this problem is not in any way restricted to the Metropolitan area. I am not in the Metropolitan area, and, for that reason, I feel it is just as well that I should have something to say, because it is of general application. My Civil Defence Committee has written to me on the subject. I wrote to the Minister of Home Security a month or five weeks ago raising the same point. The Civil Defence Committee in my area felt that the present procedure was indefensible. If it is allowed to persist as regards the employment of part-time Civil Defence employees, there is every possibility that the same principle might be extended, with considerable danger, to those who might be engaged on part-time work in ordinary industrial pursuits, not only men, but women as well. There is a very important principle involved. The full-time A.R.P. workers, as we know them, receive this full-time compensation. Part-time workers, after having done their full


ordinary day's work, were sufficiently patriotic to volunteer to do this work in their spare time. When they are overtaken with adversity, they are penalised as a result of their patriotism. That is the point of view taken by my local committee. When I was approached on the subject, I felt that this must have been an oversight when the regulations were drawn up. I did not think a parsimonious point of view had been taken deliberately, but that it was an oversight. I am hoping that we shall have something in the nature of a sympathetic reply and a reply that will enable us to feel that something tangible will be done in regard to this injustice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): The various speakers who have raised this matter have all asked for a sympathetic consideration and I can assure all hon. Members that there is no lack of sympathy in the Ministry of Home Security on this matter. I would further assure the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) that we should never dream of suggesting that our part-time workers in Civil Defence were not during their time of duty exposed to precisely the same danger as their full-time colleagues. But the essence of any problem really is how it is stated, and this problem has to be looked at in its complete setting. We have to realise that in all these questions of pay and allowances it is not possible to pick out sections and certain services and treat them differently from others. The various questions of pay and allowances, as far as the Government are concerned, must hang together as a considered whole. Therefore, I hope the Committee will bear with me for a moment while I put this picture in its setting as we have to look at it from the Government point of view.
The present position is that under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, both whole-time and part-time Civil Defence workers receive the same scale of injury allowance. The difference exists only in the arrangements that are made for supplementing these allowances. As the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras pointed out, the period of supplementation in the case of whole-timers is up to 26 weeks but, with part-timers, the maximum is 13 weeks. In the case of whole

timers, the amount may be made up to Civil Defence pay and, in the case of part timers, either to Civil Defence pay or to their wages, whichever is the less—but, nowadays, it pretty well amounts to the same thing. I would like hon. Members to consider how this present position has arisen. At the beginning of the war, the period of supplementation for both whole-time and part-time Civil Defence workers was only two weeks. In 1940 this period was extended for both of them to 13 weeks. The existing provision of 26 weeks for the whole-timer as against 13 for the part-timer was only introduced in February, 1942. Why was that? The extra 13 weeks were added to the period for the whole-time workers because a number of men had been compulsorily enrolled under the National Service Act and had been directed to Civil Defence rather than to the Armed Forces. As far as they were concerned, they were just obeying the Government's order.

Mr. Guy: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but is not everybody now compulsorily enrolled in Civil Defence.

Miss Wilkinson: Not everybody. The point is that not everybody is serving in the Armed Forces and not everybody is doing compulsory full-time work. In this particular case, the Government and not the man decided whether he went into Civil Defence or into the Armed Forces. Therefore, it was felt that no distinction could be made between the two Services in this matter. Even the whole time volunteers were frozen in Civil Defence, so they could not leave even if they wanted to. They were as much conscripts as if they had been in any of the Armed Forces. Therefore, it was clearly necessary and just to extend for the whole-timers the 13 weeks to 26 weeks to bring them into line with the Aimed Forces. Quite clearly, these considerations did not apply to the part-timers and, therefore, their period was not extended.
As I have said, nobody could be more conscious than we, who are working so closely with them, of the devoted service that is given by the part-timers, but that, really, is not the point at issue, because devoted service is being given by a large number of people as well who are not in anything like the same position, as regards pay and allowances. The full time Civil Defence member looks to his ser-


vice for full-time employment, and in sickness, as in injury, he expects maintenance from his Civil Defence Service. The part-timers, on the other hand, give service only intermittently and the rest of their time they are working as ordinary workers, subject to the same conditions and to the same privileges as any other citizen. When you compare it with other forms of national service, for which no arrangement for supplementation is made at all, the provision of 13 weeks' supplementary allowance for the part-timers can be considered generous, because the ordinary worker injured at work by enemy action does not have his, injury allowance supplemented at all, and, of course, if he is injured at work under other circumstances he loses his pay. The supplements that are paid to the, part-time Civil Defence, N.F.S. workers and fire guards may be said, therefore, to create an anomaly which would be increased if the period of supplements were extended. No concession could be confined to the part-time Civil Defence Service. To extend it to the fire guards alone would mean an extension to practically the whole of the able-bodied citizens of the country; there are at least 5,500,000 now enrolled in the Fire Guard. I am not saying that that is necessarily an argument as to why it should not be so extended, but I think we must realise that a line has to be drawn somewhere in all these questions of pay and allowances.
There is another problem which I do not think hon. Members can dismiss quite lightly, that is, that such a wide extension of these supplementary allowances would tend to undermine the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme and the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. As things are I do not think the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras has quite done justice to what a part-time Civil Defence worker would get under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme as compared with what he would get as a normal citizen receiving ordinary Workmen's Compensation. Let me give the figures. For the first 13 weeks he would get his £3 18s. 6d. a week, whereas under the Workmen's Compensation—I am talking about a married man without children—he would get £2. For the next 13 weeks the Civil Defence worker would get £2 3s. 9d., whereas under Workmen's Compensation the figure would be £2 10s.

Therefore for 26 weeks, which is the only time for which supplements are paid at all either to the part-timer or the whole-timer, they would get, under the Personal Injuries Scheme, £79 9s. 3d., as against £58 10s. under Workmen's Compensation. I merely quote the figures, not as ideal, but to point out that as against the man on ordinary workmen's compensation, the disabled part-time Civil Defence worker has not very much to grumble about. The children's allowances are the same in both schemes.

Sir A. Beit: I appreciate those figures, but I hope the hon. Lady will agree that the type and nature of the case is entirely different as between the industrial worker and the Civil Defence worker, as regards the risks they run.

Miss Wilkinson: What about the munitions worker in an explosives factory? He is working, maybe, for 50 or 60 hours a week with explosives, and therefore, during all that time is in grave danger of his life, whereas a part-time Civil Defence worker is for 48 hours per month subject to these extra risks. I am not defending the particular amounts, but I am saying that there is not really the injustice that would seem to be suggested by the speech of the hon. Member. Therefore, I want to make clear as far as I can what is the present practice and why it is not practicable to extend it to everybody. You must draw the line somewhere and there are always borderline cases. I can give the hon. Member one. A man who is a part-time Civil Defence worker puts out an incendiary bomb and is helped by another man who is not a Civil Defence worker. The bomb explodes and both are injured. One gets the benefit of the ordinary civilian scheme without supplementary allowance, while the man who is an enrolled Civil Defence worker has a supplementary allowance. So one can go on. If you take enough cases you can always find a very hard one. The vast majority of the people who are injured as part-time Civil Defence workers are disabled for a period of under 13 weeks. It is a well known fact that only comparatively few are disabled for more than 13 weeks.

Mr. Hynd: Does that apply only to the part-time worker.

Miss Wilkinson: I am speaking now of the whole field of Civil Defence but the same applies to industrial injuries. The


number of industrial accidents which cause disablement for 13 weeks is a much smaller percentage than those where a man is not able to resume work within 13 weeks. We are not claiming that this arrangement I am dealing with is ideal. All that we are claiming is that the part-time Civil Defence worker is treated more generously than a civilian who may be injured in exactly the same kind of work while doing his duty as an ordinary citizen. As the arrangements are made now over the whole field of compensation allowances and injury allowances, it is not possible to take out this class of worker and treat them differently from the arrangements made over the whole field.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Is not the difference very largely that the normal citizen goes into shelter when a raid is on, whereas the Civil Defence worker has to go out and does his job in the street? Therefore, he is entitled to special protection, shall we say, from the State. If it is justifiable to give them this pay for 13 weeks, surely it is justifiable to give it for 26 weeks.

Miss Wilkinson: I thought I had made that clear that the Civil Defence worker is exposed to a greater risk, and that is recognised by a supplementary allowance. But it just is not true, and thank goodness it is not, that the whole of the ordinary population go into shelter when there is a raid on. Very large numbers of them give help, and put out incendiary bombs which fall on their homes or on their neighbours' houses. It might be argued why is this supplementary allowance not given to them? The only argument I am putting forward is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that is the line which, up to date, after discussions with all the interests concerned, the Government have thought to be the fairest possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Lady pointed out the difficulty there would be in extending this to the Fire Guard, as it would mean an extension to 5,500,000 people. I hope that 5,500,000 people will not be injured. Surely the part-time worker while on duty is taking exactly the same risks as the whole-timer, and therefore the same consideration should be

given to him if he is disabled. He may be worse off, in many respects, if disabled than a whole-timer, because he may be in an occupation where he earns a big wage, but if he is injured and loses that wage his disablement allowance is the same as that of the whole-timer. There is a world of difference between the workmen's compensation allowances and what a part-timer would receive if injured. The hon. Lady might have mentioned that the great difference would have been that if the part-time worker had been able to fight the case under Common Law the figure would probably be three times as much as under workmen's compensation. Therefore, I think that in common equity the part-time worker ought to be placed at no disadvantage to the whole-time worker.

POLISH FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (ANTI-SEMITISM)

Mr. Driberg: It is with considerable reluctance that I raise to-day, and raised yesterday at Question Time, the problem of anti-Semitism in the Polish Forces in this country, and the possibility of the transfer from those Forces to the British Armed Forces of such Jewish soldiers and sailors as wish to transfer. I should not have raised it at all—I would much rather it could have been dealt with as it had been up to quite recently, by private representation and negotiation—if a climax had not been reached, and if the matter had not been precipitated by the event which took place last week, when military police raided a hostel in London at which a group of these Polish deserters were staying in the hope that they would be able to follow the other two groups of deserters who had already been accepted into the British Army.
I was extremely glad that it was found possible yesterday to keep the tone of question and answer at a rather high and restrained level, and I sincerely hope that nothing that is said on either side in this Debate will exacerbate a difficult and delicate situation, or create any unfortunate repercussions. Naturally, I hope also that what is said in this Debate will weigh with the British and Polish Governments, and will induce them to reconsider their decision not to allow any more of these transfers. In the course of one of his answers yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said—and I was very glad to hear him say it:


Naturally I will, after what has happened to-day, again have conversations on the subject with the Polish Government. I am sure no one could be more anxious than they are to see that there is no anti-Semitism in the ranks of the Polish Army.
A little further on he said:
Improvements have, I know, been made by the Polish Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1944; col. 2013, Vol. 398.]
I certainly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the good intentions of the Polish Government in this matter; I am not making any attack on them at all; but I am rather afraid that their well-intentioned efforts to stamp out anti-Semitism in their own Forces have not been successful, and that the conversations which the right hon. Gentleman says he will now re-open, if they are to be limited merely to the general question of anti-Semitism and are not to deal with the transfer of further troops, will be ineffective—because I do not believe that you can stamp out anti-Semitism by instructions, by Orders of the Day, or by anything else of that formal kind. I repeat that I know that the Polish Government's intentions in this respect are admirable: there is nothing whatever to be said against them for the very vigorous way in which they have tried to deal with the matter; but anti-Semitism, being essentially an emotional thing, cannot be dealt with in that way. It can be cured only by the process—a rather slow process, probably—of education. Perhaps the more blatant or brutal manifestations of it would be checked—I have no doubt about that—but I am afraid that the underlying feeling and its less obvious manifestations will remain.
Of the existence of this sentiment to a pretty wide degree in the Polish Forces, there is no doubt. I know of it from my own experience. I have during this war met quite a large number of Polish officers, in officers' messes and so on, and extremely gallant, charming, and decent young men they are. But, unfortunately, if one gets on to these awkward subjects—which one naturally tries to avoid if one is talking to them—one finds that they have certain fixed prejudices, one of which is this deep prejudice against the Jews. I have seen it in almost all the Polish officers I have met and talked to. If there were not this widespread prejudice, it would hardly have been necessary for the Polish Government to appoint, as it

did, a commission of inquiry into this matter, which, I understand, made certain recommendations with a view to helping to check these manifestations. Above all, I am convinced of the existence of these anti-Semitic manifestations by meeting and talking to large numbers of these deserters who have come to London in the last few weeks. I have personally seen both the former groups and the group who were arrested last week, and their story is absolutely convincing. I have talked to them personally. They are a tough, highly-trained combatant type of soldier, most of them, not the non-combatant clerical type or the sensitive intellectual type, although those types are also present in the group. Their stories are quite horrifying and absolutely convincing. I am certain, on internal evidence, of their authenticity.
All along they have emphasised strongly, in their conversations with me that they were not in any sense trying to run away from the war, or from their duty as fighting men. On the contrary, they want to do it where they believe they can do it more effectively, in the British Army. The letters which I have had from some of those who were transferred, through the good offices of the Foreign Office and the War Office, to the British Army, mention with special delight that the writers have been promised by their commanding officer that, after a preliminary period of six weeks of training and tests, they are to be transferred to the appropriate combatant units of the British Army, and not kept in the Pioneer Corps; they do not want to go merely into the Pioneer Corps. I am not saying anything against the Pioneer Corps, which does most valuable work; but I am sure hon. Members will see my point. It is a fact that there is this widespread anti-Semitism in the Polish Forces, and this fact is in itself intolerable in this country, in the midst of a war against the very kind of system and philosophy of which anti-Semitism is a conspicuous symptom.
These men of the earlier group came to see me a few weeks ago. We met several times, and, rather against my will at first, because I was extremely busy with other things, they made me informally their spokesman. I am not speaking on behalf of any organisation or body at all. I am not a Jew myself, and I do not belong to any of the regular refugee organisations.


Indeed, I understand that some of those admirable and very reputable organisations have looked slightly askance at this particular problem. I know their difficulties, and I realise that they have to consider what they call long-term policy, and to take a broad view of the interests of Jews throughout the world. I do not blame them in the least for that. I am sure that the priest and the Levite had excellent and sensible reasons for not paying attention to the man who had fallen by the wayside and been beaten up by robbers. I am sure they said, "We must take a long view, and plan an efficient police system, to make sure that people are not beaten up by the wayside; we cannot possibly deal with individual cases." But it is the example of the good Samaritan which is commended to us. The long view is all very well, but when I find a human being, or 30 human beings, as in the case of the last group, or a maximum of 600 human beings, in a state of helpless agony and distress of spirit on my doorstep, I feel inclined to ask them into the house, and to try to do something practical and immediate about it.
Such a practical and immediate step was taken by the Polish Government, the Foreign Office, and the War Office a few weeks ago, when, to our great satisfaction, they arranged the transfer of some 200 of these Jewish deserters. I cannot see why they now refuse to regard that as a precedent. I think it is, or should be, a precedent. The maximum possible number affected by this suggestion, is, as I have said, about 600. There were originally, I think, about 850 Jews in the Polish Forces. There are these 30—or possibly as many as 50—under arrest, and awaiting, or undergoing, their courts-martial, and 600 or so more besides. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman, for all his humanity, to which I pay tribute, is almost sorry now, in view of all the trouble we have had to cause him, that he helped to arrange for those 200 transfers. If he does regret that he did it, I can assure him that he would not do so if he could read the letters which these men who have been transferred write about the joy that they feel at being treated once more as human beings and comrades-in-arms, and not just as pariahs and scum. Hon. Members on this side of the House sometimes grumble a bit about the British

Army; but, judging from these letters, it is a utopia or a paradise compared with what these Jews have been through.
There are two main arguments, which were touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman in his replies yesterday, against granting the request for further transfers. The first of them, I admit, is a substantial argument, on the face of it. The second, I think, is rather less respectable. The first argument is that if we give way on this point to all the Jews, we shall have an incalculable number of other racial or religious minorities coming along, and saying, "Please, we want to leave our own forces, and come into the British Army." Some weight is lent to that argument, indeed, by the arrival and the arrest in London last week of another minority group—of Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians—who also alleged various kinds of persecution against the Polish Forces; but I do not think the cases are strictly comparable. For one thing, these Jews, of whom, as I say, there is a maximum of 600 left, are a strictly limited and clearly-definable group of people. There is no possibility of a frontier problem, or any other political problem of that kind arising in their case. At any rate, it is the case of the Jews which we are dealing with, and I do not think that the merits of their case should be prejudiced and confused by the introduction of other not strictly comparable cases, however strong they may or may not be; I know nothing, personally, about the case of the Ukrainians or of the Byelo-Russians—although I may say, in passing, that of all our Allies the Poles do seem to have the most trouble with their various minorities. But I do not want to say anything else about the other cases: I want to concentrate on the case of the Jews, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman to judge it on its merits alone.
The second argument, which I think is rather less weighty than that which I have tried to deal with, is what I may call the operational argument. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that we could not remove perhaps as many as 600 Jews from the Polish Forces, many of whom, as I freely admit—as I have myself said—are highly-trained combatant soldiers, just at the moment when the units in which they are serving may be about to take part in momentous operations. I am not going to attempt to guess the total number of Polish Forces in this


country, and I should probably be infringing security if I knew the figures—which I do not—but I am pretty certain that they must run into five figures, and that they could probably be described as scores of thousands. I cannot, for the life of me, see that to transfer boo at the most—it may be fewer—Jews from a force of that size could seriously prejudice any military plans. The other part of this operational argument concerns the maintenance of discipline and morale: there must be no more transfers because people must not be encouraged to think that by deserting they can get themselves taken into some other Army or unit. But what sort of discipline or morale can there be in the units in which these unfortunate Jews are undergoing these experiences? I have a whale drawerful of personal testimonies to the kind of thing they are experiencing, written out laboriously in Polish or, pathetically, in broken English. What kind of discipline or morale can there be in such a unit among the Jews, or, for that matter, among the Jew-baiters? They certainly cannot have a very good discipline if they disobey the orders which the Polish military commanders have, quite rightly, put out against this anti-Semitism.
I am afraid that these orders of the day have not only not had the desired effect, but they may even have aggravated the situation, because I have talked with Jews who left their units some time after the orders of the day against anti-Semitism were put out, and they said that these orders of the day had made very little difference, except perhaps that it was not done so noisily. Man after man said: Now they say, these bullying sergeants or N.C.Os., "We cannot do anything in this country, because Churchill, as we all know, is in the pay of the Jews; but you wait until we get you on the Continent of Europe: the moment we get you there, in the second front, then every Pole has two bullets—the first for a Jew and the second for a German." I have been told that more of that sort of thing has been said to them by N.C.Os. and other since the Polish orders of the day condemning anti-Semitism have appeared. What good discipline or good morale can there be in such circumstances? I suggest that these men cannot, from a strictly military point of view, be fighting as effectively in the cause of the United Nations where they

are now as they could be in the British Army.
In this, as in other matters, one must keep a sense of proportion. I hope I have not magnified the importance of this problem unduly. I have certainly not exaggerated by one hair's-breadth the things that have been told to me, honestly and genuinely as I believe—

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I ask the hon. Member what steps he has taken to have these allegations confirmed.

Mr. Driberg: They confirm each other, for one thing. I do not know if the hon. Member is suggesting that I should, perhaps, have written to sergeants in the Polish army, against whom allegations are made, and said to them, "Did you bully this man on such and such a day?" It is a ridiculous suggestion. One could not confirm it in that way. But, in arty case, there was no suggestion in the Foreign Secretary's reply yesterday that any of my allegations were unfounded. What is more, I had taken the trouble, as I thought it only courteous to do, to send to the Foreign Office, a few days before, a copy of the letter I circulated to a number of hon. Members, giving fairly full details of the background of these cases, and there is no suggestion by the Foreign Office at all that any of my facts are incorrect. I hope I have not exaggerated or magnified the facts unduly.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: When were the instructions against Jew-baiting issued by the Polish Command? What were the circumstances that led them to issue these anti-Jew-baiting instructions.

Mr. Driberg: I am not certain why they did that, but I presume it was as the result of protests from the British Foreign Office. It is possible. Probably the Foreign Office said to the Polish Government, "You must do something about this." I thank the hon. Member for pointing that out. This does seem to me an intensely tragic human problem, involving quite an important point of principle. I realise fully the weight of the argument that military necessity must be paramount on the eve, possibly, of invasion, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there are occasions and situations in which political considerations become military considerations.


Honestly, I do not think it can be claimed on purely military grounds that the retention of this handful of Jews in the Polish Forces is good for discipline, or desirable, even, in view of the operations which we are told are impending.
If I might say so, with all reverence, I think it is not inappropriate that this matter should have been raised during Holy Week. To-morrow is Good Friday, and in many of our churches there will be read a prayer which has been specially composed this year by the Archbishop of Canterbury—a prayer for the persecuted Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Jews who are suffering mental persecution and torment in this country, almost under his own eyes, by this strange irony of current history; and I urge him, and plead with him, to do what he can to rescue them and to assist them, not only in his orisons but by his actions.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I think everyone, irrespective of party, in this House has been deeply moved and affected by the tale that has been told to us by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). There is one thing, however, that I hope—that neither will this unhappy problem become a matter of party argument nor will any of us feel that we are proving ourselves any less friends of the Poles because we are forced to admit the existence of these difficulties. I have been fortunate enough to have been chairman of one of the oldest Anglo-Polish societies in this country. Therefore I was in a position to meet many Poles, and I formed the highest respect and regard for them. I have also seen a number of Poles in my constituency. I discussed their tenacity and courage with their commander, and found, invariably, comments of the highest enthusiasm. Therefore, I hope I may be free from any bias whatever.
Indeed, I sometimes think that it is high time that some of us recalled the debt we owe to Poland. I think the passage of time and the incidence of great events have blurred matters in our minds. We are inclined to forget, after nearly five years, Poland's gallant stand, and the fact that she fought and faced the enemy for a longer period than any other European country, as well as the fact

that her tenacity, courage and endurance were the inspiration to the world of free peoples and her suffering and hardships the cause of heartburning to all of us. The armies of Poland who escaped fought and bled across Europe and through France to this country. For the last three years they have been defending our shores. During that time they have earned respect and regard to a most widespread degree for their qualities and behaviour, and they have received it.
We must admit, and it is no use blinking the fact, that, in Central Europe, many of them have become tainted with the bestial doctrine of anti-Semitism, and, after they came to this country, this doctrine still permeated their attitude to the Jewish members of their army. I think the numbers are few who have indulged in this persecution. I do not think it is as widespread as my hon. Friend suggests. I think it is limited to a very few camps. I am saying that to preserve, as far as possible, the balance. When this question was raised yesterday, the Foreign Secretary advanced one or two reasons which justified him and the Polish Government in refusing to give the same privileges to the last bunch of deserters as they had given to the earlier escapees. [An HON. MEMBER: "Refugees."] No, they escaped from Europe, where they did not want to serve, and came to London, trying, as far as was humanly possible, to get into the British Army. The Foreign Secretary said that the Polish Government felt, that in view of the imminence of operations, they were unwilling to part with this few hundred Jewish soldiers, all of whom, as my hon. Friend says, are of high quality and good fighting material—or practically all of them. My response to that argument would be, that, if such a transfer were permitted, these men would not be lost to the Second Front. It 'would simply mean that we, in the British Army, would gain a few hundred happy, soldiers, while the Poles would lose a few hundred unhappy ones. It is one of the oldest military axioms that a happy soldier is an efficient soldier, so I would say that, as far as military operations are concerned, and as far as military efficiency is concerned, quite apart from the question of humanity, this transfer might be safely and comfortably accomplished.
One final point. A small number are still in Polish custody. Some are, as my


hon. Friend said, being tried by court-martial, and others are awaiting court-martial. We know what the penalty of desertion is, especially in war time. It is death.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong.

Mr. Driberg: It can be.

Sir T. Moore: I did not say that it is inevitable.

Mr. Bull: Has it ever happened in this war.

Sir T. Moore: I do not say that it is inevitable as a penalty but if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield knows King's Regulations as well as he should know them, he must realise that the death penalty can be imposed for certain offence in war time. It is the fact, and so it does not brook argument, nor is it worth while arguing. We are well aware that the Polish Government have many grave and difficult problems and that they face them and tackle them with outstanding wisdom and restraint. Therefore, I suggest that it might be possible to add to those great qualities the quality of mercy as far as these men are concerned.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that all of us very sincerely and deeply regret the necessity for raising this matter. I felt personally, the moment it was brought to my attention, that it was a matter which deserved to be brought to the attention of the House, and we ought to congratulate my hon. Friend, who obviously in a matter of this kind must speak with deep emotion, but who on this occasion spoke in a restrained manner, and I find nothing of which to complain either with the matter, or the manner in which it has been put before us. We all have the deepest respect and regard for the part which the Polish people are playing in this war, and those of us who were in this House at the time will remember that it is now nearly five years ago since my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), standing at this Box, called the attention of the Government of the day to the tragedies being enacted in Poland and urging the Government to lose no time in going to their rescue.
I say that because we all want it to be conveyed to the Polish Government that the words that are being spoken are not the words of enemies but of friends who have a deep regard for them. It has only been my privilege on one occasion to visit Poland to meet their miners. I know their leaders and I know something of what they have suffered and how gallant they have been; and I look forward to the day when Polish miners will be free once more to join, with the British and other miners throughout the world, in the better contentment of all of us. As a friend and as a member of a party which has a deep regard for them, I would say that recently the national executive, of the party of which I am proud to be a member, made a pronouncement, in which we state that we must use our influence to see to it that a free and independent nation of Polish people will be one of our objectives in the post-war period. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to convey the feeling of the Government, as the Foreign Secretary has already done, and perhaps it would strengthen the appeal to the Polish Government. If it does not, this Debate will do more harm than good.
This racial bitterness and anti-Semitism is something that we detest, and do not want to see accepted in this country. It is a beastly doctrine in any form. It is one of the things against which we are fighting. We are deeply grieved to see evidence of it anywhere and particularly to find evidence of it among those whom we call our Allies. These are really tragic cases and I can understand how deeply felt an insult to one's nation can be. It goes very deep indeed. I realise how it became impossible for these men who feel so deeply and are hurt so much, whose dignity has been touched so much, and whose deepest feelings have been injured and who feel the situation keenly, to stay. I would say to my right hon. Friend that we are grateful for the manner and tone in which this matter was dealt with by the Foreign Secretary, yesterday.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I know that the hon. Member is speaking for the Labour Party. If we take these unfortunate Jews away from the Poles into this island, is not that, in itself, even condoning what the Poles are doing? Have we not the right, as senior partner, to demand that the Poles should clear up the situation


and take these people back as honourable soldiers? I put that to the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: I said earlier that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would convey to the Polish Government how all of us detest anti-Semitism and do everything he could to clear it up. I have heard the evidence submitted to us for consideration in some of these cases. We ought to ask them to stop it. I have the gravest doubts of the wisdom of sending these men back with their memories. At the same time, I agree with the hon. Member. We should convey our friends and Allies, the Polish Government, that we as a whole detest anti-Semitism and that we appeal to them to do everything within their power and to take every step to stamp it out. We do not like it anywhere, least of all in this fair isle of ours.

Mr. Lipson: It is most important that nothing should be said in the course of this discussion which is likely to impair relations between Poles, whether Jews or non-Jews. The Polish Jews are living together to-day with Poles who are not Jews. They will have to live together in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend who introduced this subject, that we must see this matter in its proper proportion. I hope we shall. That there is some anti-Semitism in the Polish Army there can be no doubt. Otherwise, the Polish High Command would not have issued the orders that they have issued. We must accept that but I am not prepared, unless there is further evidence, to accept all the allegations which have been made. One has to be fair to both sides. When we are considering this Polish problem we have to recognise that, if there am Polish Jews who are the victims of anti-Semitic outbursts at the hands of other Poles, there are also alive to-day in Poland a great many Jews who owe the fact that they are alive to Poles who are not Jews, who have sheltered them from the Germans often at the risk of their own lives. That is what I mean when I say that we must view this matter in its proper proportions and, with all due respect to my hon. Friend, we must take the long view. I am one of those who look forward to the time after the war when the Jews in Poland will have what the Jews have in this country, equal and full rights of citizenship. When that claim is put forward

after the war I do not want anybody to be able to throw at them this accusation, "During the war you were not prepared to fight in the Polish Army." Therefore I think we have to realise that if a claim is put forward for Polish citizenship after the war we do not want it to be obstructed because of that argument, because it is a charge that will be made against them.
We are concerned, however, with the fate of these particular men. For the reasons I have advanced, I am not prepared to advocate that they should be transferred to the British Army. I think that ultimately it will be in the interests of Poland, and of the Jewish subjects of Poland, that this matter should be cleared up by dealing with the cause of the trouble, which is the anti-Semitism that exists, rather than by trying to run away from it and taking away the particular victims for the time being. I would urge first, however, that the Polish authorities should not deal too hardly with these men who, I hope, will follow the advice of their Jewish representatives, which is that they should return to their Polish units. But the men are concerned with this, that when they get over to the other side in the Second Front, they may then perhaps be murdered by some of the anti-Semites in the Polish Army.
I hope that all Poles will recognise that their enemy is Hitler and his Nazi followers, and their duty is not to fight each other but to fight the common enemy. The Polish Government must make every effort to deal with this evil of anti-Semitism, whether it exists on a large scale or on a small scale, for the sake of its own future. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It is not for me to tell the Polish Government how it should deal with it, but I do say that it is the duty of a Government to govern and to see that its instructions are carried out. No Government can control the thoughts of men, but a Government can prevent the manifestation of those thoughts when those manifestations are evil, as they are when people are persecuted for anti-Semitic reasons. It is the duty of a Government to see that any action taken against innocent people by anti-Semites is severely dealt with, and that is a responsibility which any Government must accept. I want to appeal to the Polish Government to realise what a danger to their whole future it would be if the anti-Semitism—


which unfortunately one has to recognise existed in Poland before the war—were to continue there after the war.
It is perfectly true that if you scratch an anti-Semite you find a Fascist or a Nazi underneath, and as we are fighting this evil in this war, the Poles must realise that for the common cause for which Poles and others are giving their lives, this curse of anti-Semitism must be uprooted out of Poland and elsewhere. Therefore, I want to express the hope that these particular men will not be too harshly dealt with as a result of the action they have taken; that they, on the other hand, will recognise that, as soldiers, it is their duty to return to their unit; that the Polish Government will be aware of the danger of anti-Semitism to their whole future, and show by their actions that they believe that anti-Semites are the enemies of Poland.

Miss Rathbone: I confess I rather dreaded this subject being raised in to-day's Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driherg). I thought it might have been wiser if he had been content with the assurance given by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, that he would renew his conversations with the Polish Government, because that would have given rather more time, behind the scenes, for some amicable arrangement to be arrived at. But since he has raised it, although I may seem to be speaking on both sides of the fence, I can only speak the truth as I see it.
First, as to the probability of this charge of anti-Semitism made by the soldiers being true, I must testify that for over a year I have known of the prevalence of this evil. I have had complaints of it from serving Jewish Poles who wished to consult me as to how they could avoid joining the Polish Army, and even from British people who were billeting these men and had made friends with them. It seemed to me that the evidence was quite overwhelming that there is a great deal of this kind of anti-Semitism, which has prevented men who were, say, Jewish doctors from being employed in the Polish Army on anything but rough manual duty, and has prevented men entitled to stripes or to commissions from getting them, as well as the kind of insults which the hon. Member for Maldon has quoted. There-

fore, I do not doubt the reality of the grievance. It may be asked why I have not said anything in the House before. I will tell hon. Members why. Because I felt it was a very delicate subject for an Englishwoman to raise. So many people have paid testimony that I will not repeat what we all feel for our gallant Allies the Poles, knowing what they have suffered, what splendid work they do, and what charming people they are. So what I generally did was to recommend these complainants to seek the advice of the two great representatives of Polish Jewry on the Polish National Council, who, I knew, were doing their utmost to secure remedies for reasonable complaints on behalf of their Jewish clients, and at the same time to be completely loyal, as I think they both have been completely loyal, to Poland because they felt that Poland must, after all, come first. I am sure those two men did their best, but we have only to see what has happened during the last few months to realise that they did not succeed in stamping out this evil.
The question now is, What can be done about it? Honestly, I cannot help feeling very deep doubt as to whether—especially after what has happened during the last few months, and especially after this Debate—it is going to be possible for really cordial relations to be established between Polish Jews and the non-Jewish Poles in the Army. The non-Jewish will feel that the Jews have, so to speak, blackened them in the eyes of the British public. I cannot see really good relations being established, whatever the Polish Government does—and I am sure it will do its best—or whatever our own Foreign Office does. What can be done to solve the difficulty? I would like to suggest something very bluntly, as a complete outsider on military matters. These are, by admission, most valuable men. The Polish Government cannot have it both ways. If they were shirkers, or evil, frightened, neurotic people, the Poles ought to be glad to lose them and have them transferred to the British Army. It is quite clear that the reason they do not wan: them is to be transferred, is that many of them are valuable people—tank drivers, parachutists, engineers, all sorts of trained men. Therefore they are valuable stuff in an Army that is likely to be engaged in operations on the Continent.
One can well understand that an Army like the Polish Army, which although very gallant, is not very big, cannot afford to lose lightly even 650 men of that calibre. I have been reading, as I suppose nine-tenths of the British public have been reading in the last few days, the publication, under the auspices of the War Office, "The Eighth Army." One of the things that struck me most was how extraordinary it was that during the whole of the North African campaign, people of all nationalities were mixed together. I read of battles or sorties in which there were Africans, Indians, men of the West Sussex Regiment and Free Frenchmen and it seemed to me that the Eighth Army was really an interlocked Army. Is it impossible, then, for these men to be put into the British Army, under British officers and N.C.O.s, and attached to the Polish Forces, so that the latter could use them for the purposes for which they have been trained? I know that 650 is a small number but could not an arrangement of that sort be made, so that we could have the best of both worlds? As an outsider, I just cannot see how men, wanted for Skilled work, will be useful on the Continent, if they are utterly miserable and are afraid at the same time—quite unreasonably, no doubt—that they will be shot in the back by Poles who resent the kind of action they have taken. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will discuss this whole matter again with the Polish authorities who, we know, have done their best to try to stamp it out. It is, however, deep-rooted; and it is difficult to fight against a psychological disease. The Polish authorities have done their best, but I cannot see why they cannot succeed to such an extent that these men will be really happy and efficient Polish soldiers. Is there no way in which this happiness and freedom from fear can be combined with the interests of the Polish Army.

Captain Alan Graham: I think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) for their speeches. They were in the tone which we should all try to preserve in discussing this question, and if my researches for truth in this matter do not necessarily lead me to the same conclusions as those of the hen. Member for

Maldon (Mr. Driberg), I hope I shall not, in consequence, be accused of anti-Semitism or anything of that sort. It is precisely partisanship that we wish to avoid, if we are to arrive at the truth. In the search for truth, it is quite possible that things shocking to our ears may emerge. That is always the danger of sincerity, but sometimes the risk has to be taken. I am glad that even the hon. Member for Maldon, in the course of very widespread and exaggerated attacks on the Polish Army, exonerated the Polish Government and the Polish military authorities from these charges—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not the military authorities."]—yes, the Polish Command, from any policy of anti-Semitism because, in fact, they have done what lies in their power to stamp out this abuse, but as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities, we cannot by legislation deal with something that is psychological.
A Commission was set up by the Polish military authorities in consequence of the representations of the many friends of Poland in this country who pointed out that there was nothing more damning to the Polish cause that it should acquire, however unjustly, a reputation in this country for tolerating anti-Semitism. As the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pointed out, their friends went to them and it was in response to this that the Commission was set up. Incidentally, General Sikorsky, in his lifetime, set his face resolutely against any anti-Semitism and that policy has been carried on by the Polish Government. The Commission which was set up recommended inter alia the following: the issue of special instructions to all officers ordering energetic repression of any excesses which, even outwardly, could be interpreted as a sign of an unfavourable attitude towards Jewish soldiers. In the case of punishable acts, the authors of such acts were to be tried by court-martial. The instructions should restate and re-emphasise the principle of equal and just admission of Jews to O.C.T.U.s and special courses and of equal treatment as regards promotion and citation for good conduct. Furthermore, the Commission advised the organisation of frequent meetings of N.C.O.s and men, and of talks by education officers, for the purpose of inculcating the need for goad comradeship between soldiers of all creeds in accordance


with the age-old Polish tradition. It should also be stressed in these talks that the Polish Government would always extend equal treatment to all Polish subjects without any discrimination whatever.
The date of those recommendations was 23rd February last. It was complained by the hon. Member for Maldon that apparently there had not been much result but as these instructions were issued only six weeks ago I think it is a little too early to look for immediate results, psychologically. I agree that it is a pity that these instructions were not issued considerably earlier but I hope the House will not think that anti-Semitism is a matter of inherent Polish viciousness. There are, in all these things, I regret to say, historical reasons which, however regrettable, are, nevertheless, understandable. When this war broke out the ratio of Jews in Poland was something like one in 10 of the Polish population—a very high proportion. The intelligence of the Jewish race is well known. The high natality of Polish farmers and peasants meant that their lands had to be continually split up so that it was impossible for them to get a proper living. The amount of land which was split up did not enable a large number of Polish peasants and their families to get a living. It might be asked why they did not go into the small trades connected with agriculture. They could not do so because the Jews had a monopoly of those small trades. They were more apt at them and, moreover, there were no vacancies. There was no possibility for the children of Polish peasants in very large numbers to find an occupation in their own country and, consequently, they had to emigrate.
Wherever you have an alien element brought into a country you have very strong sentiment aroused against that element. Those of us who have Scots blood in our veins know that when James I became King of England, as well as of Scotland, he brought with him a large number of Scottish courtiers and followers, who got very good jobs in this country, and, shocking though it may appear, for a considerable number of years the Scots were very unpopular in this country and there was a strong anti-Scottish feeling. Where there is a high proportion of an alien element in another nation you cannot avoid this feeling being aroused against them. It is very deplor-

able but it happens to be true, as anyone with a knowledge of history knows. Also it is not merely from the Polish army that desertions of this sort have happened. Only a fortnight ago there were 80 Jewish desertions from the Czechoslovak army. So it is nothing particularly against the Polish army in this country that these desertions take place from them. There have also been desertions from the British Forces in the Middle East. I will give the reasons why they have taken place. There are certain Jewish political organisations in Palestine—I am certain unofficial and not representative of the Jewish race as a whole—which have organised desertions of the Jews from the Polish army and subsequently incorporated them in illegal military Jewish units. Up to 1,000 Jews deserted the Polish ranks immediately before the embarkation of the Second Corps for the fight against the Germans in Italy.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this is a discussion started for the purpose of bringing, in the gentlest and kindest manner, a serious question before the Polish Government, in the hope of getting a settlement, is it desirable that we should have such a manifestation of anti-Semitism by one who is associated with certain Polish officers, so as to give the impression that those Polish officers are encouraging anti-Semitism in the House.

Mr. Speaker: What is desirable it is not always my duty to say. What I am concerned with is, what is in Order, and on the Adjournment, I am afraid there is nothing I can do as long as the hon. and gallant Member is in Order.

Captain Graham: Many widespread allegations have been made about hostility between Poles and Jews.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Polish Army Command made it a condition that E.N.S.A. should not send a single concert party to the Polish army which included a Jewish artist, and that they insist on that condition? Has that condition been repudiated or annulled.

Captain Graham: I have no knowledge of such a condition.

Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. and gallant Member accept that it is true.

Captain Graham: Certainly, but the reason for that is not necessarily anti-Semitism. In all probability it is that, where there are Polish artists available, they feel that Polish artists are more likely to entertain Polish troops. At all events, if hon. Members will try not to be the partisans of one side or the other, but will concentrate on getting at the truth, they should know that thousands of Jews from the ghettos and elsewhere in Poland owe their lives to the fact that they had been sheltered by Christian Polish families, who did so at the risk of their lives. That is an undeniable fact, and it is totally wrong to assume that there is any really widespread feeling or definite acts of anti-Semitism amongst the Poles in Poland or here. Of course, between certain individuals you have feelings of resentment, as exist in every country between one element and another, which is not assimilated to the nation. Disraeli, one of the greatest Jews we ever had in this country, refers in his "Life of Lord George Bentinck" to two sorts of Jews, those who make excellent citizens of the country where they are living, and others who, no doubt owing to persecution, do not feel that they can attach their loyalty to any country and prefer underhand methods to overt aboveboard methods. I ask hon. Members to realise that Jews can fall into those two categories and that, in their very natural desire to right an injustice and see that suffering is not inflicted, they should not be shielding dishonest underhand methods under the banner of righting a great wrong.
It has been said that those Poles who were forcibly conscripted in the German army, then sent to serve under Rommel in Africa, taken prisoner and brought here to Polish units, are the particular germ-carriers of anti-Semitic feeling. My information from the Polish Ministry of War is that that is most definitely not the case. It is not perhaps very flattering to Polish ideas of discipline but they say that the discipline that these troops endured in Rommel's army was such as to make them so highly disciplined that they could not be guilty of any spontaneous enthusiasm for Jew-baiting or anything of that kind. They are extremely well-disciplined troops with the most excellent morale. I have met many Jews in the Polish Army. One

stood by my side when we were addressing a public meeting not long ago. He had escaped from a ghetto in Warsaw. The question was asked, "Is there any real anti-Semitic feeling in the Polish Army?" He said, "I am a good Jew but I am also a good Pole and I am in the Polish Army. In my experience I have not come across it." I must leave the House to judge whether it is in the interests of the Poles themselves to allow anti-Semitism, where they could stop it and, in regard to what is actually happening in Poland and the communion of common suffering binding Jews and Poles together in the awful, harrowing persecution which they are both undergoing, more than any other people, at the hands of the Germans, whether by raising this question, we are likely to do any good, either to the future relations between Poles and Jews after the war in Poland, or between the Jews and Poles to-day who are, at the risk of their lives, sheltering Jews.

Mr. G. Strauss: I very much regret the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Captain Graham), not so much because of its contents, which I wholly disapprove, but because he has engendered a quite unnecessary heat and a prejudice into this discussion on an important matter. It makes it far more difficult to deal with the practical problem of the 600 men in the Polish Army who are, everybody agrees, suffering some minor or major form of persecution. Everybody who has spoken in the Debate, including the hon. and gallant Member for Wirral, has agreed that at least some anti-Semitism exists in the Polish Army. The only difference between Members who spoke previously and the hon. and gallant Member was that he excused it and defended it.

Captain Graham: I explained it, which is very different.

Mr. Strauss: It is very regrettable—for the Polish Government have done all they can in their official capacity to stop this anti-Semitism—that this disease should be championed by the hon. and gallant Member, who smeared that Government with the anti-Semitism which he sustains and which I do not believe they do. The question is what this House should ask the Government to do in the


present circumstances. I do not think that sufficient attention has been drawn to the fact that this virulent outburst of anti-Semitism in the Polish Forces has been caused by a particular event. That is the influx into the Polish Army during recent months of large numbers of men who were bound to be anti-Semitic in their outlook. I do not know how many men there were, but my guess is that there were thousands of Poles who, because they were threatened with concentration camps and all sorts of things, opted in 1940, or it may be even earlier, to join the German Army. For three years these men were in the German Army. Many of them fought under Rommel, and during that period were subjected to the full blast of German anti-Semitic propaganda. They were captured in Tunisia and were immediately incorporated into the Polish Army and sent over here.
These men are the main cause of the present trouble. It is not only the inherent anti-Semitism of a section of the Polish population, which we are all agreed about, whatever the causes may be, but that anti-Semitism has been supercharged very violently by the influx of these 3,000, who are practically Nazis, and who have joined the Polish Army recently. We have such an acute situation to-day that it is ridiculous to expect that it can be improved by the Polish Government issuing an order of the day such as was read by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Such an emotional situation cannot be treated by orders or commands or requests. It is there, deep among the men and among the officers—not all of them, but a very large section—with the result, as we have ample evidence to show, that this persistent anti-Semitism flourishes in the Polish Army to-day. According to my investigations, it does not manifest itself in any spectacular acts of brutality here or there or in one particular camp or another. That is not the form it takes, It takes the form daily and hourly of jeers, jests, taunts and threats on these Polish soldiers by noncommissioned officers and, may be, other ranks, but, I believe, rarely by officers, which make the lives of these people quite unbearable. It makes them feel they are not wanted. It makes them feel that the people who are persecuting them are their immediate enemies. Much as these Jewish soldiers loath and hate

the Germans and want to get at them, they feel that the people who are persecuting them daily in every act which they do are their immediate enemies. They do not want to go into battle with these people at their sides if they can help it; they want to go into battle with comrades at their sides. I can say from the evidence of quite a number of Polish soldiers that threats are being made to them constantly. They may be idle threats but they are made in such words as, "You wait until we get into battle. You see what we will do with our first or second bullet." That sort of threat is made to these fellows frequently, so much so that their lives have become intolerable.
It has been recognised that the situation is unsatisfactory. That has been recognised by the Polish Government and the British Government. They have done the wise thing in the past, and have said, "We will take over some of these boys into the British Army," and there are 200 of them there to-day. Now the Government say that they cannot take any more, and they give two reasons. The first, given by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, was that the Polish Government have made far-reaching efforts to make sure that anti-Semitism does not prevail in the ranks of the Polish Army. I believe that the Polish Government have made such efforts, but they have not had any effect, and they can have no effect. Does anybody suggest that a man's complete outlook in life, his religion if you like, can be altered by an order of the day hung on the notice board? It cannot be done and has not been done, and all the evidence it is possible to get shows that anti-Semitic persecution is as virulent to-day as it was before this notice was put up.
The other argument put forward is one that must command the respect and attention of the House. It is that at this stage, with the invasion operations looming ahead, it would be damaging to the fighting strength and capacity of the Forces of the United Nations if 600 men were withdrawn from the Polish units taking part. I do not think that there is very much in this argument. The number of men involved is comparatively small, and I suggest that it is desirable, from


the point of view of the unity, discipline and morale of the Polish Divisions which are going into the fight, that this internal conflict should be removed as quickly as possible.

Captain Graham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member does not give way the hon. and gallant Member must not remain standing.

Mr. Strauss: I am usually willing to give way when I am interrupted, but I will not give way to somebody who would not give way himself. It must be obvious that it is very difficult for a soldier to fight in good heart for freedom, when he himself is persecuted and is fighting in the close company of his persecutors. It would be much better all round if these soldiers could be transferred to units where they could fight in a comradely way, with soldiers who would treat them as brothers.
Therefore I beg this Government and the Polish Government to look at this matter afresh. I am sure that I shall be expressing the view of the majority of hon. Members, and, I believe, the opinion of the majority of the nation, in suggesting that they might come to a solution of this question along the very simple lines of letting this transfer take place as soon as possible. It should be done very quickly, so that the men who are anxious to take an effective fighting part in the coming operations should be there, trained and in their places when the operations begin. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and I beg the Polish Government to let no question of prestige stand in the way. Many of the men concerned volunteered to join the Polish Army, and they want to fight in the best possible way, where they can do so most effectively, to help the cause of freedom and the cause of the United Nations. Let them be transferred as quickly as possible to British fighting units and then, when the operations take place, I am certain that they will fight with outstanding valour.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I am not quite convinced that the case has been made out, although it was put moderately by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and others who spoke in its favour. As I told him before the Debate,

I do not agree with his point of view. I would like to go further and to say that in my opinion it is a great pity that this matter has been raised. Technically, the men of whom the hon. Gentleman was speaking are deserters. Either you are to have a rule about desertion or you are not to have such a rule; either you have discipline in an army or you have not. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) suggested that I had not such a knowledge of the King's Regulations as I ought to have. I do not know what knowledge I ought to have of the King's Regulations. I have not read through, and I have not the knowledge of, every Bill which has been before this House as I ought to have, and other hon. Members have not that knowledge either. I think that disposes of that small point. If desertion and that type of thing are to take place, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Maldon, I would remind him that there are other Allied Armies, and that it simply cannot be allowed. You must have a law with regard to desertion.

Mr. Driberg: But it did happen a few weeks ago that this act of desertion, regrettable though it was, was endorsed or condoned by the action of the War Office and of the Foreign Office in accepting these men.

Mr. Bull: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by an act of desertion. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs talked about shooting, in the case of desertion in the field. If there was, it is a horrible thing to say, but I do not know of any man being shot in this war for desertion in the field. If the hon. and gallant Member or the hon. Member for Maldon can cite me any such case—

Mr. Baxter: There were many in the last war.

Mr. Bull: But we have got on to another war now.

Mr. Driberg: All I was trying to say was that the Polish courts-martial are competent to pronounce sentence of death for this offence.

Mr. Bull: But has it ever been carried out or pronounced.

Sir T. Moore: That is not the issue, if I may say so.

Mr. Bull: But it is my speech, on the contrary.

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member has put wrong words into my mouth. That is the point at issue. The hon. Member for Enfield said that I said that the penalty for desertion was shooting. I did not say that.

Mr. Bull: Then I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon.

Sir T. Moore: I said that under the Polish regulations, and under the King's Regulations as well, the possible penalty for desertion in war-time was death.

Mr. Bull: And I reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that were that sentence carried out, there would be infinitely fewer acts of desertion in the face of the enemy. But the deserter goes back, gets a shower bath, a bed to lie on and a meal. That disposes of that point.
As regards the problem of Jews in the Polish army before the war I visited the ghetto in Warsaw. I do not want to see any worse sight than I saw there. I am perfectly in sympathy with the solution of the problem, as far as that goes, but I would like to remind the House of one small point which we ought to consider, because it bears on what we are discussing at the moment, According to my reading of history, since we lost the 13 American colonies—albeit that at the beginning of that war most of them were in our favour and most of the people of Britain were in their favour—I thought we had learned something. I thought this House had learned that the main function of the British Parliament was to legislate for Great Britain. Here we are attempting to advise and legislate for the Poles and anyone else who comes our way. I suggest to hon. Members that Allies are fairly hard to come by.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Member aware that this House gave the powers to the Polish authorities that they are now using? Surely we are entitled to give them advice how to use them.

Mr. Bull: What powers.

Mr. Gallaeher: To function in this country.

Mr. Bull: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain that point to me afterwards. My main point was that I had always understood that the function of this House was to legislate for the British Isles. That is what I always understood, and that is

why what we are now discussing disturbed my thoughts. As I said, Allies are fairly hard to come by. We are not overburdened with them, yet here we are doing our best to alienate one of the first Allies that we had in this war. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.

Sir T. Moore: There was nothing said in the Debate for the purpose of trying to alienate the Poles. We expressed our tremendous regard and admiration for their grand qualities.

Mr. Bull: All right, I agree with that, but why attempt to legislate for them? It is their problem, and not ours. What in the world has it to do with us? We have enough minority problems in our own country, let alone trying to cause trouble among our Allies. I think that we ought to do nothing—to use an American phrase—to sell Poland down the river after the war. I hope we shall remember that they were the first nation to stand up properly and fight while we were arming and getting ready. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was talking all day yesterday. If he wishes to interrupt me may I ask him to stand up and do it like a man? I have the greatest admiration for the Polish and Czech soldiers. There is nothing better. They may have lost their countries for the moment, but they held up the enemy while we, late, were attempting to get ready. It is the greatest pity that we should do anything to attempt to legislate for them.
One hon. Member mentioned something about bullying sergeants and N.C.Os. I always found that they bullied the junior officers, but I did not ever see any case of the bullying of private soldiers, in my small Army experience. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) mentioned something about two Polish bullets, the first for a Jew and the second for a German. In any mess, an officers' mess, an N.C.Os.' mess, anywhere you like, one hears inconsequential words spoken. One hears also a certain amount of nonsense spoken in this House. One cannot get away from the fact that too much store must not be set by that. I suggest it is rather a pity to introduce such a remark. All sorts of silly things have been said to me at various times which do not amount to anything. My final observation would be that we have all seen how much


time it took us, for example, to get through the Committee stage of the Education Bill. I therefore suggest that we have enough business of our own to attend to. For goodness' sake let us, at least, leave our Allies alone.

Mr. Pritt: I wish to answer one or two things which the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) has said, as well as to make one or two other observations. Firstly, the hon. Member said, "Let us either have a law for deserters or not." Of course, all experience shows that everybody who administers the law has, occasionally, to administer it with less rigour. When we have here a responsible Foreign Office and a responsible War Office, which three times running have agreed, and got the Polish Government to agree with them, that the proper thing to do with deserters is to let them pass into the Forces of another Army, I think the inevitable inference is that there 'are very strong and compelling reasons for this lenient treatment. That provides a good deal of foundation for what we are now pressing the Government to do, to continue in that practice. Then the hon. Member said, "Why are we worrying about the Poles?"

Mr. Bull: I did not say, "worrying about the Poles."

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member said, "Why are we legislating for the Poles?" We are not at the moment legislating for them. We are asking the Government to negotiate with the Poles, and persuade them to take a certain course. We are dealing with the matter rightly and emphatically, because if we had not, by legislation in this House, given the Poles the power to discipline and shoot men, then every time they touched a Jewish or Polish soldier in this country they would be guilty of common assault for which they could be sued in the police court or the county court. Therefore we have a direct responsibility, legal, theoretical and moral, for the actions of the Polish Government. I am very glad that nobody has sought to say a word against the Polish Government, but it does not alter the fact that we have a duty in the matter. The hon. Gentleman said that saying "One bullet for the Jews, another for the Germans" may be "just pretty Fanny's way"—

Mr. Bull: I did not mention "pretty Fanny."

Mr. Pritt: I did not mean to attribute any particular acquaintance with anybody.

Mr. Bull: I will think of a nice phrase for the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Pritt: He said that it just did not mean very much. The question is what it does mean. Sometimes, I quite agree, we all talk nonsense. This might be nonsense, but here is a case in which it has been taken by the Jews to whom it was addressed, to be so little nonsense that they deserted at the peril of their lives, and made their way to London. Then, as to 200 of them, this appeared to the Foreign Office, which is not unduly sentimental, and to the War Office, which is not sentimental in the least, to be so real, that on that and similar evidence it was right to transfer these men to the British Army. So, if I may be pardoned for using a colloquialism, I do not think that one can get away with that.
If I may come to a more general point, one or two hon. Members have said it was a great pity to raise this question at all. It is a great pity that this question has had to be raised. I had some little part in it; my hon. Friend the Member for Mal-don (Mr. Driberg) had a great deal more of the responsibility and so had my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). The raising of this matter is something which has been anxiously debated internally, and withheld for months and months while the Foreign Office was behaving with the utmost responsibility. We all agreed and hoped that it would never be necessary. One thing I noticed, when it was in fact raised yesterday, was that the Foreign Secretary did not make any complaint of that action being premature or unreasonable or that it was detrimental to the public interest. The truth is quite plain—it is sad to have to say it—that it really had to be raised, and having been raised, it has been dealt with by almost everybody with the utmost reason and moderation.
One or two hon. Members asked whether people are satisfied with the evidence. One might answer that by saying that much of it has convinced two Government Departments. I have a great


many faults, but I have had 32 years' training in weighing evidence. I have had these cases brought to me at desultory intervals over the last four years—I know the hon. Member has had many more than I have. I have had half a dozen of these people in my chambers and cross-examined them, using every conceivable trick I have learned at my clients' expense in the last 32 years, to see if they were stating the truth, and I came to the conclusion that broadly most of them were, in substance, telling the truth.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Will the hon. and learned Member tell us, since these discussions were going on behind the scenes for a number of weeks, did he gather that the Polish authorities, the Polish high command or the Polish Government, said that they could not grapple with this themselves? We would like to know if that is true. Did they say that.

Mr. Pritt: Oddly enough, they said a great deal more to the Foreign Office than to me. They only interviewed me once, with great 'courtesy, and made it clear that they were trying hard to deal with the problem. I do not think that they could be expected to say in terms "It is beyond us," but we are entitled to judge, as is the Foreign Office, whether it is beyond them. I think we can see from what has been said to-day that you can no more cure anti-Semitism suddenly, than you can cure pneumonia in two seconds. There just is not time to deal with this medically, it has to be dealt with surgically. The only thing I want to say about the Foreign Office is that I have noticed, over many months, in the course of the negotiations, their first attitude was, "It is not a matter which we can really do anything about. It is not a thing in which we can reasonably be expected to interfere." Their second attitude, that to which they eventually passed, was, "This is something in which we really must interfere."
What we can do is to impress on the Foreign Office that this is something about which the House feels strongly, and that' the promise of the Foreign Secretary to resume conversations with the Polish authorities ought to be developed into negotiations with, and with all proper pressure upon, the Polish Government.
There were one or two remarks from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) to which I would like to reply.

He said that, taking the long view, it might be felt that when these Poles got back to Poland, these Polish Jews released from the army would be reproached by Polish Gentiles and Jews that they did not fight for their country in their own country's army. I do not think anything of the sort will be said. I am not going to try to speculate on what sort of a Poland it might be in which these things might be said, except to say that we all want it to be an independent Poland and a strong Poland. I am not going to say how many divisions of the Polish Army there are here. I do not know, and I would probably be wrong if I guessed. But I do say that, when the people go back to Poland, there will be Polish Armies there. There will be the Polish Army now fighting in the ranks of the Red Army, the Polish Army now in Britain—I hope they will be there—and there is the Polish Army under General Anders somewhere in the Middle East. I hope they will be there and that they will have taken part in the war before, they get there. Then there will be the Polish underground army, which will outnumber the whole lot. I do not think it will matter very much, if there is a good, tough Jew, who has fought for his country, whether he has "Royal Engineers," or whatever it may be, on his shoulder.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham also suggested that the method proposed by the Foreign Office, to transfer these people to the British Army, was really dodging the issue and running away. I suggest that that is the last thing of which they can be accused. I feel that it was a most broad-minded and courageous action on the part of the British Government. The only question now is whether they can go on in the same course. I think many hon. Members think they should, and I support them.

Major Lyons: I want to say first that the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) for having brought this matter to Debate. He put the case yesterday with great moderation, and it was dealt with by the Foreign Secretary with great sympathy and reasonableness. I am sure we all appreciate the difficulties with which this matter is beset. I have had no case of this nature submitted to me. I have had no personal examination, therefore, of any incident. There is no


doubt, however, that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), and other hon. Members, are satisfied that there is a great deal of evidence, unfortunately, to support the allegations that have been made. It is a very great pity indeed that this matter has had to be brought forward and the sorry facts dealt with.
May I make this appeal? This is a very serious matter, which is undermining these men who want to do their best in the Polish Army. They are faced with a grave position—a position recognised in the past by two responsible Government Departments, who have had the courage to act in a way which, I am sure, commends itself to the whole House. We have legislated in the past to super-impose in this country a jurisdiction for our visiting Allies—something which has been unknown before. I remember I was apprehensive about it. I am not saying that it has worked badly; far from it. I am not trying to criticise the Polish Government; far from it. This was an innovation, and, after all, having made the innovation, we have some responsibility to see that there is administered a code of justice substantially in accord with our own notions. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the Polish Government. I am quite unconvinced that, with a firm stand, this matter cannot be avoided. Can the Polish Government be pressed to take a firm stand against it? We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a type of Government not our own. We are dealing with visiting Allies. We respect the attitude they have adopted in this war, but we deplore this conduct, which is quite intolerable to us. I venture to urge the right hon. Gentleman—and I am fully appreciative of the sympathy which his right hon. Friend showed yesterday, as we all are—to persuade the Polish Government to make such a stand as will stamp out this pestilential conduct which we are discussing, and which will enable the Polish Army to take its part, with great courage and justice, having regard to the issues for which the war is being waged. And if this should unhappily fail, then let them seek again, by way of transfer, the way out of this impasse, which will give these men the simple and just right which is theirs.

Mr. Mack: I think the whole House is indebted for the moderation shown by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)—a moderation which was not altogether justified. The hon. Member must be aware, as, indeed, many other hon. Members of the House are aware, that these things are far more deep-rooted than some would be prepared to admit. In fact, anti-Semitism in Poland is no new thing. Poland has a record in anti-Semitism which is one of the worst in the whole world, and which goes back far beyond the beginning of this war. The causes, into which we have no desire to enter, may be very deep-rooted, but I observed a remark from one hon. Member, who presented the Polish case and referred to two kinds of Jews—one an excellent and outstanding citizen and the other an entirely different citizen. He said, in regard to the second category, that this was, no doubt, owing to Christian persecution. I do not believe there is such a thing as Christian persecution, because if it is persecution it cannot be Christian. I may say that all these attempts to gloss over the attitude of the Poles in their own country, and, what is worse, within the shores of this country, do not convince hon. Members who know the facts.
I was associated with the late Colonel Victor Cazalet, who was a good friend to Poland, and who, on one occasion, came to me and spoke of this matter. By his kindness, I was privileged to meet General Sikorski, to whom I spoke. He was a moderating influence in Polish and international affairs, and it is rather unfortunate that he was succeeded by an element which seems to be less moderate in that respect, but, whatever may be said about that, he assured me that there were elements in Poland and in this country causing him great concern, and he was trying to do his best to counter-balance that with whatever power lay with him as Prime Minister. The fact remains, and I have made a close investigation and have visited them, as the hon. Member for Maldon did, that they are not able to have their orders obeyed by the military command in this country. In fact, they are being completely ignored by that command, and the worst excesses in that respect are taking place in various parts of this country. Jews are being told—and I am assured of this not by one here and one there—that when they get back to


Poland they will be killed. That may be said to be barrack-room talk, but the fact is that it creates a psychological effect of the worst kind on a man who is already worried about the part he is going to play in this great battle.
Members of the Jewish persuasion are not helping by trying to tone this matter down and apologising, or by saying, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) did, that they should take the long-distance view. If these men are allowed to go, there may be reprisals in post-war Poland. I am not going to say what post-war Poland will be like, except that it is doubtful if this Government, as we know it, will play any part there. It may be that an entirely different Government will be playing its part at that time. In so far as the Poles are fighting for liberty, I would be among the first to support them in that very desirable end. If we are going to face the possibility of post-war persecution by merely handing hack these unfortunate, people to the Polish Government to do with them as they like, we are making not only a bad bargain but a gesture which is very unfortunate. This is a matter, I think everybody will agree, where commonsense should prevail. We are all thankful for the statement made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As we know of their good intentions, I would remind the House that sometimes the way to hell is paved with good intentions. As long as the principle of racial discrimination is allowed to obtain inside this country it leads to the posibility of a greater degree of anti-Semitic and other discriminations after the war. This is the principle for which we are fighting, and it is against the Atlantic Charter and the principles of equality that we can allow a minority to be treated in this fashion.
We are indeed very grateful, whatever the outcome of this discussion may be, to my hon. Friend for having the courage and the public spirit to bring this matter before the House. I am sure that the vast number of Members of all parties who are anxious that there should be equality and fairness as between the Jews and the Polish army and between the Jews and the Polish nation will support the move that we are making in order to bring this matter before the attention of my right hon. Friend. I trust that he

will intercede with the Polish Government and point out that it is foreign to our mentality, and that he will see as far as possible that these unfortunate Jews are released and allowed to serve in the British Army.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I am pleased to know, from what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said, that one of the main difficulties in this question is likely to be removed, that is to say, if he is speaking on behalf of his own race. He protested very ardently against the pernicious theory of race discrimination. One other hon. Member, also of the Jewish persuasion, condemned in no uncertain terms the race discrimination that is causing so much trouble in the world to-day. The reason that I mention that to the House is this. The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) pointed out that it is mainly a pyschological fault and that in her opinion—and I think she is right on that—it is extremely difficult to deal with it by any administrative action of any sort; the cause of the trouble must be removed.
In the case in question, things have come rather to a head. The feeling, which has always been latent among several nations for hundreds of years, and which gives rise to anti-Semitism, has been very seriously exaggerated during the present war. I am not blaming anyone for the policy which has led to that situation. It was an absolute necessity in the circumstances of the time in order to rouse our people and the people of our Allies to fight this war with their whole will and power in order to defeat the enemy. We were obliged to point out certain terrible threats to the future of mankind. It is the theory of the Herrenvolk, that there is a predominant race in some way or other, completely different from any other race on earth; some specially favoured race, whose mission it is to dominate all the other races of the world and reduce them to subjection. The second thing is that, in carrying out the great mission of the Herrenvolk, which Hitler proclaims and has proclaimed with so much force for so many years, the annihilation of beaten races who were subjected by force of arms to the Herrenvolk has been carried out—smiting them hip and thigh, so that not one of them


remains. I suggest, without rubbing in the lesson any further of the psychological or the racial, that this unfortunate and most pernicious feeling common among Gentiles is due, in the main, to the fact that the particular race with which we are dealing has from the earliest moment of its history, proclaimed the theory of the Herrenvolk, and the fact that no other race has any right even to a bare existence.

Mr. Gallacher: I will not follow the ravings of the hon. Member for Mosley (Mr. Hopkinson), but I will direct the attention of the Minister to something of great importance from my point of view, and through the Minister, to the Polish authorities in this country. I have had a long association with the Polish people and before the last war I took part in many demonstrations for a free and independent Poland. Some 40 or 50 years ago there was a large influx of Polish miners and steelworkers into Scotland, and nowhere have men and women been so warmly received and made at home as has been the case with regard to the mining and steel districts of Scotland. There has never been any feeling against these Polish workers and they have been good neighbours. I would like the Polish authorities to understand that there is an appalling feeling to-day. Let anybody who has any scepticism at all come and go into the factories and round the districts where Polish officers are in the habit of frequenting, and listen to the stories that are told about the language they use and the threats they make, and see the impression it makes cm the people there. I have never known feeling against anybody, at any time, such as the feeling which exists in this regard.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Recently I had occasion to visit some of the Polish squadrons in the Air Force and I found everywhere nothing but the greatest possible respect for these Poles. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is giving a completely unfair view.

Mr. Gallacher: I should have said that no body of soldiers could receive more consideration or better treatment than the Polish soldiers have received. The airmen and others are respected, but the feeling against a particular element, because of the language they are using, is

appalling. If the hon. Member has any doubt, I will introduce him to some of the people who will persuade him of the truth of this. The Minister and the Polish authorities ought to understand that these particular offenders are doing harm not only to themselves, but to the Polish people.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): This has been an interesting Debate, and, in one respect at least, an unusual one. It is unusual for this reason, that a Debate of this kind generally arises, as this has done, out of a reply given by a Minister at Question Time. It generally arises because the hon. Member who has asked the Question is so dissatisfied with the answer that he gives notice that he will raise it on the Adjournment. A formula with which we are all familiar is, "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment." In this case, however, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who has initiated this discussion, did not use that formula. In fact, he said that the reply of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was sympathetic and understanding, and, in spite of that, he wished to have this Debate. I am very glad that the hon. Member does think that the attitude of the Foreign Secretary—and indeed it is clear that the House thinks so too—is sympathetic and understanding in this very difficult problem. I can assure the House that we are fully alive to the difficulties. We are conscious of the feeling which a great number of hon. Members have upon this subject, and we are doing our best to resolve the problem.
I shall not be able to give the House an assurance that we shall resolve it on the lines suggested by more than one hon. Member and, indeed, I hope to be able to develop to the House arguments which will, I hope, convince the majority of hon. Members that the problem is not in fact capable of a solution along those lines. This has been an interesting Debate, and it has been conducted at a very high level. My hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss) complained that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wirral (Captain Graham) had engendered heat and prejudice in our discussions. I do not quite know what are the standards of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth on these matters,


but I am inclined to think that, according to his judgment, heat and prejudice are engendered in a discussion whenever anybody happens to disagree with him; as long as they agree with him, it is on a very high level.

Mr. G. Strauss: It depends on the type of argument that is used.

Mr. Law: I go further than my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth. I think this Debate has been marked by a very high level of detachment and objective search after the truth on both sides of the House. One noticeable feature of it has been the fact that there has been no kind of criticism, from any part of the House, of our Polish Allies. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Lianelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who said that hon. Members who had taken part in this Debate were speaking, not as critics, but as friends, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend said that. I am very glad that it does reflect the opinion of this House to-day. It is quite clear that, whatever has been said, is not intended to be a reflection upon our Polish Allies, or upon the Polish Government in particular.
The hon. Member for Maldon, and other hon. Members, submitted that when we had discussions with the Polish Government, the result of which was that 200 soldiers should be transferred from Polish units to British units, we had thereby created a precedent, and that it was extremely unreasonable not to follow that precedent now. At the time when this transfer was made, it was made clear that this was not to be regarded as a precedent; that we should not expect that, if there were any further desertions from the Polish Army, and if members of the Polish Forces came up to London to interview hon. Members of this House, it was going to be followed in the future. We must, I think, first of all get out of our minds the idea that a precedent was created at that time. It was not a precedent, and it was made quite clear that it was not intended as a precedent.
Then hon. Members may very well ask, if it was not intended to be a precedent, why was it done? The answer is that we felt, and the Polish Government felt, that here was a situation which wanted looking into and correcting. Therefore, as an exceptional measure, these men were

transferred and, in the meantime, the Polish Government looked into the situation that we have been discussing to-day. More than one hon. Member has said—

Mr. Driberg: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves that point? Surely, since the Polish Government have not been successful in suppressing anti-Semitism in the intervening period, as indeed they could not be, the situation for these 30 or 50 men is precisely the same situation as for the 200?

Mr. Law: I hope I shall be able to deal with that point as I develop my argument. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth said that you could not deal with a problem of this kind by the issue of Orders of the Day, that it was a far deeper thing than that, that it was a deep psychological problem and you could not deal with it just by issuing Orders. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, you cannot. But that is not what the Polish Government have done. It is true that the Polish Government have issued Orders of the Day on this subject, and very stringent ones. It is also the case that steps have been taken by the Polish military authorities to give courses of lectures and instructions to all ranks in the Polish Army, to explain to them the necessity for stamping out anti-Semitic feeling whenever it shows itself. That has been done with complete sincerity on the part of the military authorities and it has been done very thoroughly. In addition, orders have been given that any instances of anti-Semitic conduct are to be reported and dealt with as a breach of discipline. I very much doubt whether the Polish Government, or any other Government, could go further than that.
Now we get to the point which the hon. Member for Maldon interjected just now. He said, "Clearly, whatever measures the Polish Government have taken, they cannot have been successful or you would not have had a repetition of what has occurred before; you would not have had another batch of men deserting from the Polish Forces and coming up to London if the efforts which the Polish Government have been making had been in any way effective." I would like the House to examine that proposition. I wonder if it is really so? In any problem of this kind where you have a racial minority, where you have some tendency to anti-Semitism, things begin with trivial inci-


dents and they are magnified by conditions under which the men are living—in this case they become magnified because here we have active and valiant men who have been training and waiting to get into action for a long time, and in such circumstances you are inevitably liable to get some magnification of comparatively trivial incidents. But when you add to that the possibility that a man who is a victim of a trivial incident that may develop into something rather more important, is perfectly free not only to desert, not only to come to London but to approach Members of Parliament, and know that his case will be heard on the sounding board that Parliament is, and to know that some Members will bring pressure upon the Government to bring pressure, in their turn, upon the Polish Government to release him from the Army, then you are bound to get a continuance of indiscipline of that kind. I think that that is absolutely certain.
Why cannot we make a clean job of it and ask for the release of all Jews in the Polish Army? The hon. Member says that there are not so many of them, probably a matter of 600 out of thousands of valiant men in the Polish Army and that that cannot make any great difference. That is the hon. Member's argument, but I do not believe it is a valid argument at all. The fact is that these men are trained to play their parts in the units which have been training together for a very long time to act and to fight as units.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said that all that the problem really meant was the exchange of 600 unhappy soldiers in the Polish Forces for 600 happy soldiers in the British Forces. Believe me, that is a quite remarkable over-simplification. In modern conditions of warfare, which is highly technical and mechanised, to withdraw 600 men from a unit which has trained together for months, and put in 600 men who are equally good, would effectively destroy the efficiency of that unit. But you are not only doing that; when you take 600 men from the Polish Forces and put them into a British unit which has trained together, the British unit is thrown into confusion. I think we should be taking a serious responsibility upon ourselves if we attempted to insist at this time, above all, on making really sub-

stantial alterations in the military dispositions which the commanders-in-chief have made. That is not a responsibility which I would be prepared at this time, above all times, to take upon myself nor, I suggest, is it a responsibility which any Member of this House ought to be prepared to shoulder at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) reminded us that we had a duty not only to foreign minorities in this country but to our own constituents. I think we ought to remember that, at a time when we are on the eve of a tremendous military adventure, on the eve of probably the most tremendous military undertaking that has ever been planned. We do not want to do anything that will shake the morale or efficiency of any single part of our Fighting Forces, whether Allied or British, and I do not believe you can encourage indiscipline in the kind of way which the hon. Member for Maldon would like to encourage it—and I believe it would be a direct encouragement to indiscipline—without its effect being felt far more widely than just among this particular unit and the particular batch of men concerned. While hon. Members may feel every sympathy with the case which the hon. Member has put before the House to-day, I think we have to keep a sense of proportion, not only in respect of the matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) spoke earlier, but also in respect of our British interests in this matter.

Mr. Driberg: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of my argument that, from the strictly military point of view, discipline, unity and morale in the units in which these things are happening cannot be very good.

Mr. Law: I do not want to say anything that would engender into our discussions a note of acerbity that has so far been absent, but it is quite certain that so long as a deserter from any Allied Army can come to London and advertise his case in the British House of Commons you will not get good discipline. I think the answer to the problem which the hon., Member puts about whether you will get discipline in these conditions depends largely upon what is said and what is not said in this House. I think our best chance of getting an effective Polish


fighting unit is to leave this problem to the Poles themselves to solve, in the belief, which I hold, that they are doing their very best to solve it, and that they are having some measure of success. That may be news to the hon. Members, and they may not agree with it, but, in fact, as a result of the action which has been taken over a long period of time by the Polish military authorities to combat this evil of anti-Semitism—

Mr. Driberg: As a result of pressure.

Mr. Law: The relations to-day between the Jews and the non-Jews in the Polish Army are probably better than they ever have been before.
I do not think they are likely to be improved by a Debate of this kind. I have no objection to the spirit in which the Debate has taken place, although I still do regret that it had to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham spoke about the necessity for taking a long view in this matter and I think we all ought to consider the effect of this upon the much wider problem of the position of the Jews in the world as a whole. That is a subject in which this House and this Government are deeply interested. What is the effect likely to be, of Jewish refugees, so to speak, from the Forces, coming up to the House of Commons, having their case stated in public, and having it advertised all over the world, on the position of those men themselves and on the position of Jews as a whole.

Mr. Mack: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to argue that Jews, refugees or otherwise, who meekly accept racial discrimination without protest are appeasing their tormentors and will secure immunity from persecution in future.

Mr. Law: No, I do not suggest that. This is rather a special case. Without any suggestion of impertinence or condescension, I would ask my hon. Friends to exercise their imaginations in the matter a little bit. At one stage in our deliberations to-day there was a suggestion that the Scottish had been a persecuted minority in this country.
Let us suppose that there is a British military unit training in, for example, the United States, and that in this unit there are a few Scotsmen, or it may be Welsh-

men, who are being subjected to ragging and jokes, which begin by being good-humoured but gradually get less good-humoured and eventually become offensive; and I and my friends from Wales go to Washington and get hold of Members of Congress and say, "We are being treated monstrously on American soil by these British units. Will you expose the scandal?" Then Senator So-and-So gets up and they have a terrific debate and say, "What brutal people the British are, fundamentally anti-Welsh or anti-Scottish. There is nothing whatever that you can do about it. It is true that the British Government are doing their best but, after all, what can they do in the face of a problem like this?" It is plastered all over the newspapers, our colleagues in the old battalion read what the papers say, and then we are very pleased with ourselves and think we have done a great stroke of work, and we go back and expect to be received with open arms. But we are not likely to be received with open arms. What we have clone is a bad thing for ourselves and for all Scotsmen or Weshmen, as the case may be.

Mr. Gallacher: Supposing the Washington Government gave a bunch of Englishmen power over a mixed bunch of Englishmen and Scotsmen and the Englishmen started ill-treating the Scotsmen, would not the Scotsmen be entitled to go to Washington and say, "You have given power to the wrong people".

Mr. A. Bevan: May I suggest that in the circumstances envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman the people who would have gone to Washington for protection would be the English.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the right hon. Gentleman infer from that picture that, if the United States had rescued 200 Welshmen or Scotsmen, they would have done a foolish thing, because we seem to have done the same thing here.

Mr. Law: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the argument I have been trying to put. I did not say that we did a foolish thing in having these 200 men transferred. Obviously if we had thought it a foolish thing we should not have done it. I think that was legitimate. What would not have been legitimate is to open the door indefinitely and to say, as you would be saying of any member of any


Allied force who has a grievance, that in the opinion of the British House of Commons he has a right to join the British Forces. That is not a proposition which in my view the Government could possibly entertain or which this House ought to ask the Government to entertain. The Polish Government are doing their best to grapple with the problem and I have absolute confidence in them. It is not possible to accede to the hon. Member's request for the reasons I have given, but I hope I shall be able to carry the House with me in my belief that our main function now is not so much to look after this or that thing that is wrong but to sustain these forces, and our own troops, to the utmost extent possible for the great ordeal that lies ahead of us.

Mr. Driberg: May I make two short pleas to the right hon. Gentleman? First, would he say that the possibility of obtaining some transfers will not be excluded from the agenda of the conversations that the Foreign Secretary is going to embark on, and would he give special attention to the case of the very few men, 30 or 50, who are undergoing court-martial or are still in London—because, if they are sent back to their units, their personal position will be perfectly intolerable—especially, I admit, in view of the publicity that has arisen from their action?

Mr. Law: I am sorry, but I cannot add anything to what I have said on that point. Certainly I cannot give any guarantee that the possibility of transfer will not be excluded and I cannot give any guarantee that we shall attempt to dictate or try to influence the Polish Government as to the disciplinary action which they will measure out in this case. In my judgment the one important thing is that these Polish soldiers should know where they stand. They should know that their duty lies in continuing the work that they have begun.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING FACILITIES)

Colonel Arthur Evans: We have without doubt been discussing a question of great seriousness, and I should like now to come to a domestic matter which concerns the facilities and arrangements for catering and refreshment within the Serjeant at Arms' Department of the House of Commons. I should like

first to submit a point of Order and ask, if the Report of the Select Committee of the House has been laid on the Table of the House but has not been received back from the printers and made available to Members, would it be in Order for the Chairman of the Select Committee to disclose details of the Report, in reply to questions raised in the Debate by an hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for giving the Chair notice that he was proposing to raise the point of Order. The answer is, Yes, it would be in Order for the Chairman of the Select Committee to disclose details of the Report because, theoretically, a document laid on the Table of the House is at the disposal of Members. That also applies to other Members who have knowledge of the contents of the Report, though it would hardly be convenient to make extensive use of extracts from it, because presumably the House as a whole is not aware of the contents.

Colonel Evans: I am grateful for your Ruling on that point.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Do I take it that when a Select Committee has sent a Report to the printers to be embodied in a White Paper that that Report is already laid on the Table?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is actually laid on the Table of the House and ordered by the House to be printed.

Mr. A. Bevan: It is ordered by the House to be printed, but I submit that it is not made available. If a quotation is made from a Report which has been laid on the Table but has not in fact been made available, how can I check the correctness of it? When a Report is laid before the House it is discussed at a certain point and availability is part of the process of laying on the Table.

Colonel Evans: May I submit this point? It appeared in the Orders and Proceedings of this House on 29th March that this Report of the Select Committee had been laid on the Table, and I take it that if Members applied to the Vote Office for a copy they would be told that it was not available because it had not yet been printed. A number of roneod copies had been made available for the use of the


printers and for any hon. Members who desired to see the Report, which at that moment was in the Committee Office of the House. I therefore submit that, as it is available in roneod or typed form in the Committee Office after it has been laid on the Table, an hon. Member, in accordance with your Ruling is at liberty to make reference to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that is so.

Colonel Evans: With your permission Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will now come to the question I desire to raise. Yesterday, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith), in his capacity as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, a Question with reference to the catering facilities which would be made now and in the future for the convenience not only of Members of the House but "for all those whose business brings them to the House." I ask the House particularly to mark those words. In the future it might be necessary for the House to consider an alteration in the hours of sitting, and it was obvious when I put the Question that that was in my mind. In replying to the Question, my hon. Friend gave me the information which I sought, but he went further, and in reply to a question, which was never put by me, he went on to say:
We are not prepared to ask for any preferential treatment for Members of Parliament unless the House decides otherwise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April 1944; col. 2001, Vol. 398.]
I never asked him such a question. I never inferred such a question, and by making a reply of that kind I submit that he rendered a distinct disservice not only to me, but to Members generally and to the House, by suggesting in the constituencies, in the whole country and throughout the world, that the only consideration in the minds of Members of Parliament at a time like this is whether they can get privileges for themselves in the matter of food supplies which are denied to the public. I am sorry that my hon. Friend, particularly as he had clear indication of what was in my mind, felt it necessary to add such unfortunate words to his reply. Those hon. Friends who are associated with me in this view which I am expressing are not asking for any special privileges for Members of the House or for those whose business brings them here. All they are asking for is

for those privileges which are afforded to any national institution or establishment whose efficient management is essential in the successful prosecution of the war. I do not think any Member will dispute the claim that we come well within that category. I want to be at some pains—in view of the large number of Members who wish to speak on this subject—to confine my remarks to a short time and not to exaggerate the case which I wish to put.
In a nutshell, my submission is that the refreshment arrangements of the House of Commons within the Department of the Serjeant at Arms are neither adequate nor good and, in my modest judgment, compare ill with other war establishments which have to face and overcome the same difficulties as my hon. Friend's Select Committee has to do within the strict regulations of the Ministry of Food. This is not a point of view which is personal to me. Representations have been made to me by those representing the officials of this House and by officers representing the Press Gallery, and by Members of Parliament drawn from all sides.
Let us take the question of facilities first. What are the facilities available to officials of the House and to those whose business brings them to the House, whether in connection with the Press Gallery or with other affairs? If by chance their duties keep them beyond a certain hour, as often happens, they have one restaurant to go to; the one in the passage leading to the Harcourt Room. They then find that no hot food is available, and all that can be produced is a piece of spam and perhaps a hot potato, but they are lucky if they get that. It means that the only facilities available for these ladies and gentlemen is the small public tea room. If the House sits a long time, and they go there to get something to eat—and there is a rush on the one available source of refreshments—they find there is perhaps a cake left and no sandwiches, plus a cup of tea. Beyond a certain hour there are no facilities available even outside the House, for the public restaurants which most of us can afford are closed or are full. This means that after a hard day's work, all concerned, Members or not, have to go home with nothing in their "tummies." That is not in accordance with the wishes of this House.
In putting the Question to my hon. Friend yesterday I anticipated that in future the House might have to sit later. That depends on what decision the House might make in the future. If we do sit late it is not unreasonable to ask my hon. Friend and his Committee to provide facilities for us to eat. We cannot carry on talking nine or ten hours a day unless we have something to sustain us. The purpose of my Question was to ask whether in these circumstances extra food would be provided to supply two meals a day. How can my hon. Friend suggest that this is asking for preferential treatment for Members of Parliament which is denied to the public? I do not want to say too much about the cooking. All I would say is this, that at the moment, God and the Ministry of Food supply the food, but, so far as the cooking is concerned that is—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Colonel Evans: As I was saying God and the Ministry of Food supply the food, but the cooking in the House of Commons is a matter for the Devil himself. I do not expect pre-war standards, but I have lived on Army rations in two wars, and in other places in this war, where the food provided comes from the common source it is much better cooked and better served than we get here in the Mother of Parliaments. I observe that in the winter, when there is a shortage of meat—and I am not asking for any extra meat—we never have venison. It never occurs to my hon. Friend to apply to the Chairman of the Forestry Commission to let us have some venison, which is sold at the price of 9d.per lb. I have never seen venison on the menu of the House of Commons. There seems to be a lack of imagination in the administration.
Let us come to the staff arrangements. If it is impossible to carry on with the present staff, might I ask whether my hon. Friend has considered applying to the Ministry of Labour to supply the extra staff required? If this House is placed on a war footing—which I think we have a

right to claim—then the Ministry of Labour can direct the necessary labour. If that is not possible, and we do not wish to make any unfair claim, I am quite sure that that splendid organisation, the Women's Voluntary Services, would regard it as an honour and a privilege to provide a service for the legislators of their country.
I think the Kitchen Committee—if I might have the attention of the Chairman for one moment—has fundamentally wrong ideas on this matter. The purpose of the Kitchen Committee of this House is not to make profit but to provide adequate, clean and good meals at reasonable prices. If the Kitchen Committee find themselves unable to provide that service on an economic basis, this House would, no doubt, be prepared to make grants-in-aid towards the cost—as it has done in the past. My hon. Friend, at least in his capacity in this House, does not have to pay any dividends. His Committee has to pay no rent, no rates and no taxes, and nothing for lighting or heating, and nothing at all for overheads. But restaurants, Mr. Speaker, can, and do provide much better meals at the same prices while having to face such charges, beside discharging their legitimate responsibilities to their shareholders. I would like to make one or two references to the 1944 Report. In accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I have availed myself of the privilege of reading this Report in the Committee Room of this House.

Mr. Petherick: To which Report is my hon. and gallant Friend referring?

Colonel Evans: To the Report of the Select Committee which was laid on the Table of the House on 29th March. It has not yet been returned from the printers, but a roneoed copy is available to those hon. Members who wish to see it, in accordance with Mr. Deputy-Speaker's Ruling. I am not an accountant, but it appears to me that, on provisions alone, this Committee has made a profit of no less than 47½ per cent., which hon. Members of this House have been required to provide in high prices. The accounts as they are presented are published in a most sketchy and most extraordinary way. They make no difference as between the profit made on the sale of wines and beers in the bars and smoking room, and the profit made on


the sale of provisions. Perhaps when the hon. Member replies he will enlighten the House on that point. Having made a profit of 47½ per cent. which we have to pay—and it is rough on some hon. Members who cannot afford these high prices—I find they have not applied to receive a grant-in-aid from the Treasury. I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman desires to show his personal business efficiency by coming to this House and saying, "For the first time in many years, the Committee, under my control, has not shown a loss, but a profit." That I do not think is the purpose of the Committee. When a grant-in-aid is received I do submit that the actual amount should be shown. I hope that in the future when these accounts are brought to the attention of the Comptroller-General he will see to a that they are presented in a much more detailed fashion in order that Members of Parliament can have a better idea what the position actually is.
May I now say one word about wages. It has been common gossip in the House for some years past that the wages paid have been totally inadequate. If that is the case we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. It is for this House to set an example to industry and not only to pay fair wages, but to pay generous wages. I gather that there is a small permanent staff. What that consists of I do not know, but I gather that the permanent staff is paid for 365 days a year and is only required to work for 119 days. If that is the case I think that the hon. Gentleman should offer some explanation to the House as to the variance between the temporary workers and the permanent workers. If he is having difficulty as regards wages, he should avail himself of the Catering Act which this House has recently passed, and apply to a Board to guide him in the wages which should be paid, wages which would exclude the necessity for tipping in the House. For many years this House has had the reputation of being the best club in the world. I venture to suggest that any hon. Member, whether he is a member of a working men's club, or the Carlton Club, will agree that it is very unfortunate when tipping comes into a club atmosphere. After all, all Members of Parliament are equal, at least that is what we are told. There is an equality between the Prime Minister and the most recently elected Member of

Parliament. If there is that equality in the sight of the "Corps of Politicians," let us pay the staff of this House on an adequate and generous basis, and banish this evil of tipping, particularly from the smoking room. The practice is extremely bad; rather pay them an adequate and fair wage and enhance their dignity and the dignity of Members at the same time.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Could the hon. and gallant Member say to what extent the staff are underpaid? Can he give any details of that?

Colonel Evans: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman replies, he will enlighten us on that point. I have no knowledge of the facts, and no means of finding out. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich really satisfied with the present condition of affairs? I want him to face up boldly to the realities of the problem, as nine out of ten Members view it today. I ask him to invite his Committee to review the whole problem now, in its broadest possible aspect; to review the present arrangements and examine the obvious shortcomings. I ask him to submit his recommendations to the House, in a special report and I do so in the confident knowledge that, if he brings forward useful recommendations, however drastic, they will meet with overwhelming encouragement and support from Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. A. Bevan: I have some special right to talk on this matter, because it was only a very short time ago that I was secretary of a committee upstairs which secured a number of amenities which we at present enjoy in this House. Had it not been for the recommendations we made to the Kitchen Committee and to the Serjeant at Arms, we should not have been able to get any guests into the House, and we should not have had the cafeteria. It was not the initiative of the Kitchen Committee which produced those tawdry amenities. [Interruption.] I say "tawdry amenities"; they are very tawdry. It is one of the difficulties of this House that the products of the public schools do not know the English language.

Mr. Petherick: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I really have not time to give way. I have just two minutes, because I want to give the hon. Member for


Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith) a chance to reply. We got those amenities on the initiative of back bench Members of this House. I cannot understand what comes over Members after they get on the Kitchen Committee. Before they become members of that Committee they display initiative, enterprise, imagination, and independence of spirit. As soon as they become members of that Committee, they become furtive and unfertile, and they go about looking as if they all have guilty consciences—and if they have not got guilty consciences they deserve to have them, because most people know that we are very badly treated by the Kitchen Committee. I am not going to say that the Committee have an altogether easy time. Although my hon. and gallant Friend is right in suggesting that they have many advantages and have not the overheads that many restaurants have to carry, they have also physical conditions far less convenient than modern restaurants possess. Therefore, we cannot expect them to do things on the same terms as restaurants created for that purpose.
This is a very old building, and, by preserving its historical characteristics, we deny the Kitchen Committee the modern conveniences which make for efficiency. That is a reason why the House of Commons should be ready to give the Kitchen Committee assistance. It is not fair that Members of Parliament should have to put up with bad food and dear food in order to maintain the historical physical condition of the House, and it is a reason why the Exchequer should come to the assistance of the Kitchen Committee and why the House should support them. I am bound to say that most British Restaurants which I have visited put on a better meal than is put on in the House of Commons. Most factory canteens supply a better meal, and certainly all the Armed Forces do. There is no reason why our digestions should be assailed in the name of patriotism. I, therefore, suggest that, while we have no time to consider this matter in detail, the House is entitled to ask from the Kitchen Committee rather more enterprise and consideration than it receives at the present time.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: As Chairman of the Kitchen Committee may I say that I think the House will appreciate the difficulties of replying without having had the subject-matter of the case before me. I

have had to pick it up from the remarks of hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) displayed a little anxiety at my reply, but the hon. and gallant Member will remember that he asked for additional food. Anyone knows that we get the food that we require in accordance with our returns.

Colonel Evans: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. We only asked for additional food if the House sat for additional hours, which would cover an additional meal.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, but that is not the question. The question I was asked was if I would give an assurance that when the House sat for additional hours the Kitchen Committee would ask the Minister of Food for some additional supplies of food.

Colonel Evans: If necessary.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, but we do not want additional food. We get our ordinary allocation of food in accordance with the meals served, but additional supplies of food means food over and above the allocation we get under the rationing Order. I was perfectly clear that, as -far as additional food, over and above what we are allowed to have, is concerned, the Kitchen Committee are not prepared to ask the Ministry for any extra supplies. We shall not ask for any preferential treatment for this House of Commons, and I was perfectly correct in my answer. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member did not put his question a little more clearly.
It is rather obvious to the House that the Kitchen Committee has had "a kick in the pants" to-day, and many complaints have been made, a lot of them not justified at all. I have no time to reply to all the various points raised, but, in regard to future hours, I think it would, perhaps, be better if we wait until those hours are fixed before we say what we are going to do. I did, however, say that we would provide for adequate dining-room arrangements when those hours are fixed, and I hope that answer will satisfy hon. Members. In regard to cooking, very drastic remarks were made. [An HON. MEMBER: "And deserved."] One hon. Member said that venison was never on the menu. It is not on the menu because not one Member of Parliament


ordered venison on the one occasion when it was on the menu, so we simply did not order venison again. I am simply giving this information to the House. So far as staffing arrangements are concerned, most of our staff, almost 75 per cent. of them,. have been with us over 20 years, and, had it not been for them and their loyal service, it would have been very difficult to carry on at all. I think this House should pay a great tribute to those persons behind the scenes who have been so loyal in this particularly trying time.
This House of Commons is not an easy establishment to cater for. Sometimes we get 400 or 500 hon. Members, just as we did the other day, when the House was packed and everybody wanted a meal at the same time, and the congestion of the arrangements was very severe. Well, we had to cater for them. That is what you get in the House of Commons. If you only have 14o seats, it is obvious, all Members cannot sit dawn at the same time. It is said that the Chairman has wrong ideas. I would invite the hon. and gallant Member to be Chairman tomorrow if I could arrange it through proper channels, and he could take it on. We try to do our best in very difficult circumstances.
As far as profit is concerned, that is the last thing we have in mind. In 12 years, this is the first time the Kitchen years, has made a surplus, but it is not a surplus made out of food. The hon. and gallant Member spoke about 47 per cent. bringing in just over £4,000, but our wages come to just over £8,000.

Colonel Evans: Is it true that on food itself the Kitchen Committee made a profit of 47 per cent?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: That is the gross profit. We have to pay for all the services and equipment and that kind of thing out of it. Our wages alone amount to £8,000.

Mr. Petherick: It is said that they made a profit of 47½ per cent., but during II years out of the 12, a loss was made, and is not that a very remarkable tribute to Government control and ownership?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: It is not Government control. I have been a member of the Kitchen Committee for 10 years and Chairman since 1937 and we did not receive any subsidy from the Government until 1939.

Mr. Bevan: Did the Committee ask for it?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, Sir, but the Chancellor has always disagreed with it.

Mr. Bevan: Did the Committee come to this House?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: We could do so, but I think the Kitchen Committee should pay its own way. We should pay for our food and have done with it. That is my personal opinion and the opinion of the Committee.

Mr. Bevan: I think that is wrong because the House cannot possibly do it.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: In regard to a grant-in-aid in 1939–40 we received £4,000, in the following year £3,000, and the year after the Treasury refused to give any grant-in-aid, so that the total was £7,000. When we started more or less balancing our accounts, the Treasury refused to give any more. The hon. and gallant Member raised the question of a permanent staff and I might as well deal with the question of what we have done with the surplus. We decided to increase the wages of the staff and we have expended that £1,400 surplus on the increase of wages.

Colonel Evans: Do the wages paid today to the permanent and temporary staffs come within the terms of the Catering Act which this House recently passed?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I should think that they are higher than those provided for under that Act. There has been a general increase in wages to the kitchen staff. We have not dealt with the waiters, 'but with the staff behind the scenes who do not go in to the customer. We have dealt with the kitchen staff and the office staff and have given them roughly a percentage increase of almost 20 per cent. The whole of that £1,400 surplus which has accrued from 1943 has been given away to the staff in increased wages. The Kitchen Committee have dealt with this very closely, and we thought that, under the circumstances, that was the best method of disposing of the surplus.

Mr. Mack: Would the hon. Member say, if he can, what are the wages paid to the waiters?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: It is a long list and hon. Members must bear in mind that in pre-war days we were working five days a week—we have been working three days, now we are working four—and that the 49 members of the permanent staff—there are 65 members on the staff in all—get full pay throughout the year. For 52 weeks they get pay and they work 119 days. We are not grumbling at that but—

Mr. Bevan: That is one of the reasons why you cannot make a profit.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The waiters are getting £2 a week, and they get their percentages over and above that. We have already been in touch with the waiters to anticipate what the increase will be provided the hours of meeting are altered. I want to assure the hon. Member that I see all the members of the staff personally, and all these increases have been made by direct contact with the staff.

Mr. Bevan: But for Heaven's sake do not let anybody be under the impression that I or any other hon. Member of this House is resisting improvement in the conditions of the staff. That is precisely what we are not doing. All we are suggesting is that we ought not to be expected to pay on our food, for 100 days a year, wages for the staff for the whole year. It is nonsense to expect this to pay on a commercial basis, because it is not a commercial unit.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: It would be on anything but a commercial basis if it were not for the sale of drinks. These are the only things that let us out. If we were purely on a food basis, we would not be able to do it.

Mr. Mack: But the hon. Member cannot defend the menu, which is terrible.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I do not know how every hon. Member can raise questions about the menu. I have gone into the menu for to-day for instance. What is terrible about that?

Mr. Mack: All of it; it was quite uneatable.

Mr. Denman: Quite early the fish was all gone.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: If hon. Members have any complaints to make, they would

be well advised to write in to the Kitchen Committee.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I was a party among others to that once, and all I got was—shall not say an insult, but something very near it.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: But the hon. Member did not get an insult from the Kitchen Committee.

Dr. Russell Thomas: At any rate from the clerk or agent acting on behalf of the Committee.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Do not blame the Kitchen Committee for that. Let us be quite frank. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) and I have discussed this matter, and to raise it on the Floor of the House when he knows exactly what the position is, is, to my mind, quite beside the point. The Kitchen Committee did not dictate the letter; it was written by the Clerk to the Committee on instructions, but we did not see the form of it. The hon. Member objected to the form.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the hon. Member consider handing things over to Messrs. Lyons?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I am sorry I cannot give way now. The hon. and gallant Member inferred that this should be put on the same basis as an industrial canteen.

Colonel Evans: I said "as any institution of national importance."

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, exactly, but they get additional food.

Mr. Gledhill: Why should not we get it?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: If hon. Members will get up on the Floor of the House and say that Members should get preferential treatment—

Mr. Gledhill: That is what I was going to say if I had been given the time—

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 18th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.